Both rsync an scp won't allow me to do curl http://couch/db/_dump | curl http://couch/db/_restore.
I acknowledge that similar solutions exist, but using the http transport allows for more fun things down the road. See what we are doing with _changes today where DbUpdateNotifications nearly do the same thing. Cheers Jan -- On 16.08.2011, at 19:13, Nathan Vander Wilt <nate-li...@calftrail.com> wrote: > We've already got replication, _all_docs and some really robust on-disk > consistency properties. For shuttling raw database files between servers, > wouldn't rsync be more efficient (and fit better within existing sysadmin > security/deployment structures)? > -nvw > > > On Aug 16, 2011, at 9:55 AM, Paul Davis wrote: >> Me and Adam were just mulling over a similar endpoint the other night >> that could be used to generate plain-text backups similar to what >> couchdb-dump and couchdb-load were doing. With the idea that there >> would be some special sauce to pipe from one _dump endpoint directly >> into a different _load handler. Obvious downfall was incremental-ness >> of this. Seems like it'd be doable, but I'm not entirely certain on >> the best method. >> >> I was also considering this as our full-proof 100% reliable method for >> migrating data between different CouchDB versions which we seem to >> screw up fairly regularly. >> >> +1 on the idea. Not sure about raw couch files as it limits the wider >> usefulness (and we already have scp). >> >> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> wrote: >>> This is only slightly related, but I'm dreaming of /db/_dump and >>> /db/_restore endpoints (the names don't matter, could be one with GET / >>> PUT) that just ships verbatim .couch files over HTTP. It would be for >>> admins only, it would not be incremental (although we might be able to add >>> that), and I haven't yet thought through all the concurrency and error case >>> implications, the above solves more than the proposed problem and in a very >>> different, but I thought I throw it in the mix. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Jan >>> -- >>> >>> On Aug 16, 2011, at 5:08 PM, Robert Newson wrote: >>> >>>> +1 on the intention but we'll need to be careful. The use case is >>>> specifically to allow verbatim migration of databases between servers. >>>> A separate role makes sense as I'm not sure of the consequences of >>>> explicitly granting this ability to the existing _admin role. >>>> >>>> B. >>>> >>>> On 16 August 2011 15:26, Adam Kocoloski <kocol...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> One of the principal uses of the replicator is to "make this database >>>>> look like that one". We're unable to do that in the general case today >>>>> because of the combination of validation functions and out-of-order >>>>> document transfers. It's entirely possible for a document to be saved in >>>>> the source DB prior to the installation of a ddoc containing a validation >>>>> function that would have rejected the document, for the replicator to >>>>> install the ddoc in the target DB before replicating the other document, >>>>> and for the other document to then be rejected by the target DB. >>>>> >>>>> I propose we add a role which allows a user to bypass validation, or else >>>>> extend that privilege to the _admin role. We should still validate >>>>> updates by default and add a way (a new qs param, for instance) to >>>>> indicate that validation should be skipped for a particular update. >>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> >>>>> Adam >>> >>> >
