No, _local docs shouldn't replicate. The value of MVCC in _local docs
is to allow reconciliation in copies of the same database, where
redundancy is being added under the covers.
Can you start a separate thread for your _meta proposal? It's a
interesting thought but it's out of scope for both threads you've
raised it in.
B.
On 17 August 2011 16:41, Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2011, Robert Newson <rnew...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
> would also simplify the code imo. but do you mean their would also be a way
> to even replicate local docs with some options?
>
> - benoit
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>
