On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 08:48, Robert Newson <rnew...@apache.org> wrote:
> 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. > To be clear, _local docs do obey MVCC semantics, but do not keep a rev tree and thus do not support merging divergent histories. Multiple versions are not kept available even when they're in conflict. They have a _rev and they do get rejected with conflicts, you just can't access ?new_edits=false style merging. I'm in favor of giving them a full rev tree. > > 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 > >>> > >> > > >