nickva commented on code in PR #5611:
URL: https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/5611#discussion_r2248680667
##########
src/couch/src/couch_bt_engine_header.erl:
##########
@@ -204,17 +204,16 @@ upgrade_tuple(Old) when is_record(Old, db_header) ->
Old;
upgrade_tuple(Old) when is_tuple(Old) ->
NewSize = record_info(size, db_header),
- if
- tuple_size(Old) < NewSize -> ok;
- true -> erlang:error({invalid_header_size, Old})
- end,
- {_, New} = lists:foldl(
- fun(Val, {Idx, Hdr}) ->
- {Idx + 1, setelement(Idx, Hdr, Val)}
+ Upgrade = tuple_size(Old) < NewSize,
+ ProhibitDowngrade = config:get_boolean("couchdb", "prohibit_downgrade",
true),
+ OldKVs =
+ case {Upgrade, ProhibitDowngrade} of
+ {true, AnyBool} when is_boolean(AnyBool) -> tuple_to_list(Old);
+ {false, true} -> error({invalid_header_size, Old});
+ {false, false} -> lists:sublist(tuple_to_list(Old), NewSize)
Review Comment:
Good point, currently this is only meant to work as a counter-part to
```
% As long the changes are limited to new header fields (with inline
% defaults) added to the end of the record, then there is no need to
increment
% the disk revision number.
```
In other words this doesn't apply when version changes. It only applies when
the version matches and it's fields appended to the end.
> The downgrade in general is not solvable problem if we don't maintain
fields order for a previous version.
Agree, that's why we don't attempt to solve a more general problem just a
specific corner case.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
