MVCC for _local docs would be useful for BigCouch for the same reason
it's useful for _security docs, so your impression of what they are is
superior to reality.
B.
On 17 August 2011 16:01, Jason Smith <j...@iriscouch.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 9:51 PM, Adam Kocoloski <kocol...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> How do you feel about migrating to a blessed _local/security document?
>>> Maybe its latest version could be cached in the header for speed?
>>>
>>> Pros:
>>>
>>> * Couch gets (conceptually) simpler rather than more complex
>>> * It's versioned, you get full doc semantics
>>> * It doesn't replicate, but 3rd-party tools can pseudo-replicate it as
>>> needed
>>> * Design documents can enforce policies: if(doc._id == _local/security
>>> && doc.members.length == 0) throw {forbidden:"This database may never
>>> be public"}
>>>
>>> Eagerly awaiting a list of cons :)
>>
>> The only trouble I have with _local/security is that _local documents are
>> represented using #doc records instead of #full_doc_info records. As such,
>> they have no support for MVCC.
>
> I did not realize that, so one of the points I made was wrong. FWIW I
> always assumed _local docs were normal docs, except they are
> special-cased to neither replicate nor be represented in views.
>
> Thanks for the tip!
>
> --
> Iris Couch
>
