Sounds reasonable to me. I suggest that you try to find which people worked specifically on the existing restriction at the time RTG came about and ask them.
~ David Smiley Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 7:56 PM Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote: > It _finally_ occurred to me to ask why we have the restriction that the > destination of a copyField must have stored=false. I understand what > currently happens when that’s the case, you get repeats. > > What I wondered is why we can’t detect that a field is the destination of > a copyField and _not_ pull the stored values out of it during atomic > updates? > > Or do we run afoul of things in tlog retrieval or RTG? > > Is this a silly idea or should I raise a JIRA? > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
