[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1367?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13177798#comment-13177798
]
Robert Newson commented on COUCHDB-1367:
----------------------------------------
I still don't see why we need do anything. My early mistaken understanding of
this value should not be used as motivation here. At the time, I was not a
"couchdb committer" so the earlier implication that it escaped even my awesome
knowledge is to impute omniscience where none is warranted.
I haven't yet fixed couchdb-lucene as the update model is rather clumsy. Simply
calling _changes?since=N instead of comparing update_seq with a local value
will radically simplify that piece of couchdb-lucene. It should improve the
internals of couchdb-lucene so significantly that I would rather *not* fix
update_seq to work the way I expected years ago, in case it misleads someone
into making the same mistake I made.
That said, I wouldn't veto the change, but C-L will not depend on either the
current or any future meaning of update_seq in the next release.
> update_seq does not always reflect the seq of the latest document update
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: COUCHDB-1367
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1367
> Project: CouchDB
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: HTTP Interface
> Affects Versions: 1.1.1
> Environment: Any
> Reporter: Henrik Hofmeister
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: revs_limit
>
> Certain operations, (currently _revs_limit and _security changes) cause the
> database header's update_seq to increase when the by_seq index (and therefore
> _changes) has not changed, which is confusing in light of the naming
> consistency.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
