I see nothing wrong with an admin capability that allows you to break
the rules if it is more convenient for common operations. This is not
really a replicator thing, what we're talking about is giving the
_admin power to invoke skip_validations=true on document updates. This
can be useful for bulk
We've strayed onto the topic of backup/restore/import/export and someone
mentioned pg_dump, so I'll toss this out there.
As a long time user of PostgreSQL and their import/export tools, I'd definitely
suggest having a look at what options have evolved in their tool too get a feel
for what peop
On Aug 17, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Jean-Pierre Fiset wrote:
> I think that the operations of replication and backing up are quite
> different. Although some are using the replication features for backing up, I
> tend to think of replication as an operation taking place between two nodes
> that do no
I think that the operations of replication and backing up are quite different.
Although some are
using the replication features for backing up, I tend to think of replication
as an operation
taking place between two nodes that do not necessarily trust one another.
If what you are proposing is a
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
>
> On 17 Aug 2011, at 11:06, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>
>> Philosophy apart, dump and restore could be indeed useful to bootstrap
>> db, make plain backup/restore strategies, exchange dbs over a disk/mem
>> card without any couch installed etc.
>
On 17 Aug 2011, at 11:06, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> Philosophy apart, dump and restore could be indeed useful to bootstrap
> db, make plain backup/restore strategies, exchange dbs over a disk/mem
> card without any couch installed etc.
Yep, but in my mind this should live outside CouchDB's HTTP A
On Aug 16, 2011, at 11:37 PM, Jason Smith wrote:
> 2. Replication is a whole worldview, adding ?force=true breaks that worldview
Replication is not a worldview, it's a mechanism by which documents are
transferred between databases. I think that's the crux of our disagreement.
Cheers,
Adam
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Jason Smith wrote:
> tl;dr response here, philosophical musings below.
>
> 1. The requirements are real, it's reasonable to want to copy from A to B
> 2. Replication is a whole worldview, adding ?force=true breaks that worldview
> 3. Dump and restore sounds more ap
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 20:37, Jason Smith wrote:
> The nice thing about _dump and _restore, and also rsync, is that you
> make full, opaque clones (not replicas!). You can't merge or splice
> data sets. Once you are talking about merging data, or pulling out a
> subset, now you are in database l
tl;dr response here, philosophical musings below.
1. The requirements are real, it's reasonable to want to copy from A to B
2. Replication is a whole worldview, adding ?force=true breaks that worldview
3. Dump and restore sounds more appropriate
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Adam Kocoloski wr
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Adam Kocoloski wrote:
> On Aug 16, 2011, at 10:31 PM, Jason Smith wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Adam Kocoloski wrote:
>>> One of the principal uses of the replicator is to "make this database look
>>> like that one". We're unable to do that in the
On Aug 16, 2011, at 10:31 PM, Jason Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Adam Kocoloski wrote:
>> One of the principal uses of the replicator is to "make this database look
>> like that one". We're unable to do that in the general case today because
>> of the combination of validati
On Aug 16, 2011, at 10:23 PM, Jason Smith wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Adam Kocoloski wrote:
>> On Aug 16, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Randall Leeds wrote:
>>
>>> -1 on _skip_validation and new role
>>>
>>> One can always write a validation document that considers the role, no? Why
>>> can't
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Adam Kocoloski wrote:
> One of the principal uses of the replicator is to "make this database look
> like that one". We're unable to do that in the general case today because of
> the combination of validation functions and out-of-order document transfers.
> I
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Adam Kocoloski wrote:
> On Aug 16, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Randall Leeds wrote:
>
>> -1 on _skip_validation and new role
>>
>> One can always write a validation document that considers the role, no? Why
>> can't users who need this functionality craft a validation functi
On 17 August 2011 02:47, Adam Kocoloski wrote:
> On Aug 16, 2011, at 8:20 PM, Randall Leeds wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 17:03, Adam Kocoloski
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Aug 16, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Randall Leeds wrote:
> >>
> >>> -1 on _skip_validation and new role
> >>>
> >>> One can always wri
On Aug 16, 2011, at 8:20 PM, Randall Leeds wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 17:03, Adam Kocoloski wrote:
>
>> On Aug 16, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Randall Leeds wrote:
>>
>>> -1 on _skip_validation and new role
>>>
>>> One can always write a validation document that considers the role, no?
>> Why
>>>
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> This is only slightly related, but I'm dreaming of /db/_dump and /db/_restore
> endpoints
Jan, I also had that dream at CouchOne, but now I think it is a very bad idea.
A database is a URL. Every URL is different. Cloning URL_A to URL_B is
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 17:03, Adam Kocoloski wrote:
> On Aug 16, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Randall Leeds wrote:
>
> > -1 on _skip_validation and new role
> >
> > One can always write a validation document that considers the role, no?
> Why
> > can't users who need this functionality craft a validation f
On Aug 16, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Randall Leeds wrote:
> -1 on _skip_validation and new role
>
> One can always write a validation document that considers the role, no? Why
> can't users who need this functionality craft a validation function for this
> purpose? This sounds like a blog post and not a
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 16:23, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Randall Leeds
> wrote:
> > -1 on _skip_validation and new role
> >
> > One can always write a validation document that considers the role, no?
> Why
> > can't users who need this functionality craft a validation f
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Randall Leeds wrote:
> -1 on _skip_validation and new role
>
> One can always write a validation document that considers the role, no? Why
> can't users who need this functionality craft a validation function for this
> purpose? This sounds like a blog post and not
-1 on _skip_validation and new role
One can always write a validation document that considers the role, no? Why
can't users who need this functionality craft a validation function for this
purpose? This sounds like a blog post and not a database feature.
+0 on _dump/_load
If it ships raw .couch
Hi Jean-Pierre, I'm not quite sure I follow that line of reasoning. A user
with _admin privileges on the database can easily remove any validation
functions prior to writing today. In my proposal skipping validation would
require _admin rights and an explicit opt-in on a per-request basis. Wh
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Adam Kocoloski wrote:
> Wow, this thread got hijacked a bit :)
You must be new here.
I understand the issue brought by Adam since in our CouchDb application, there
is a need to have
a replicator role and the validation functions skip most of the tests if the
role is set for the
current user.
On the other hand, at the current time, I am not in favour of making super
users for th
Hmm, if we used a separate role we'd need a multi-step process to trigger the
replication
1) create the database
2) have an admin grant the _skip_validation role on that DB to the replicator's
user_ctx
3) trigger the replication
Kind of annoying. Certainly would be simpler to allow _admins to
no objection to special role. As in my opening statement, would be
concerned about adding it to _admin without devoting more thought to
possible unintended consequences.
b.
On 16 August 2011 19:13, Robert Dionne wrote:
> No objection, just the question of why the need for a new role, why not use
No objection, just the question of why the need for a new role, why not use
admin?
On Aug 16, 2011, at 2:10 PM, Adam Kocoloski wrote:
> Wow, this thread got hijacked a bit :) Anyone object to the special role
> that has the "skip validation" superpower?
>
> Adam
>
> On Aug 16, 2011, at 1:5
Wow, this thread got hijacked a bit :) Anyone object to the special role that
has the "skip validation" superpower?
Adam
On Aug 16, 2011, at 1:51 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> Both rsync an scp won't allow me to do curl http://couch/db/_dump | curl
> http://couch/db/_restore.
>
> I acknowledge t
Both rsync an scp won't allow me to do curl http://couch/db/_dump | curl
http://couch/db/_restore.
I acknowledge that similar solutions exist, but using the http transport allows
for more fun things down the road.
See what we are doing with _changes today where DbUpdateNotifications nearly do
We've already got replication, _all_docs and some really robust on-disk
consistency properties. For shuttling raw database files between servers,
wouldn't rsync be more efficient (and fit better within existing sysadmin
security/deployment structures)?
-nvw
On Aug 16, 2011, at 9:55 AM, Paul Da
Me and Adam were just mulling over a similar endpoint the other night
that could be used to generate plain-text backups similar to what
couchdb-dump and couchdb-load were doing. With the idea that there
would be some special sauce to pipe from one _dump endpoint directly
into a different _load hand
> This is only slightly related, but I'm dreaming of /db/_dump and /db/_restore
> endpoints (the names don't matter, could be one with GET / PUT) that just
> ships verbatim .couch files over HTTP. It would be for admins only, it would
> not be incremental (although we might be able to add that),
This is only slightly related, but I'm dreaming of /db/_dump and /db/_restore
endpoints (the names don't matter, could be one with GET / PUT) that just ships
verbatim .couch files over HTTP. It would be for admins only, it would not be
incremental (although we might be able to add that), and I h
+1 on the intention but we'll need to be careful. The use case is
specifically to allow verbatim migration of databases between servers.
A separate role makes sense as I'm not sure of the consequences of
explicitly granting this ability to the existing _admin role.
B.
On 16 August 2011 15:26, Ada
One of the principal uses of the replicator is to "make this database look like
that one". We're unable to do that in the general case today because of the
combination of validation functions and out-of-order document transfers. It's
entirely possible for a document to be saved in the source D
37 matches
Mail list logo
