see: SOLR-14838 > On Sep 4, 2020, at 12:49 AM, David Smiley <dsmi...@apache.org> wrote: > > 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 >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
