This is a regression, but it's not related to delay commit change. The
second commit phase conflict checking is broken. CouchDB verifies
update isn't a conflict twice, once before writing any attachments
(checked in parallel) and then again then again inside the updater
(checked serially). The second phase wasn't working, but the first
phase almost always catches it.
I've gone ahead and checked in the fix for the bug, and am now working
on ensuring this second phase conflict detection is always tested in
the suite.
Thanks for reporting this John, sorry for the problem.
-Damien
On Jan 12, 2009, at 4:04 PM, John Bartak wrote:
Unfortunately, it won't be easy for me to produce a small test case
exposing the problem. I've built up a pretty big .Net library
around CouchDB so I just can't ship you my test code. I'll see if I
can find time to put something together later this week.
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Davis [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 12:51 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Error when running two requests to same view
simultaneously
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 3:43 PM, John Bartak
<[email protected]> wrote:
Adding the "X-Couch-Full-Commit" header seems to make it more
likely to get 412's. But I'm still getting lots of cases where I
don't see a 412.
Hmm. I haven't at all looked at this new code, but inconsistent
behavior is unexpected at best. Given my understanding of it works, I
would expect all or none raise 412's. Would it be possible for you to
boil this into a small test case that we can play with? Or maybe
someone else can chime in with an explanation. I for one am totally
lost.
Paul
Also, I don't see any documents in the database with a "_conflict"
attribute on them.
If I can't rely on getting 412's back if somebody else updated the
revision of the document, I'll have to figure out some other trick
to determine if the current thread updated the document. Perhaps
updating an attribute on the document with a GUID that only the
current thread knows about.
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Davis [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 11:19 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Error when running two requests to same view
simultaneously
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:10 PM, John Bartak <[email protected]
> wrote:
It appears that the latest code (0.9.0a733848) does fix the crash
of the server. I now get back a result string that has an error
value of missing instead of the document:
{"total_rows":2,"offset":0,"rows":[
{"id":"09e2fb54e77545c0aec61578fe041965","key":
["repository
.repositoryfile
","ownerid","filename"],"value":null,"error":"missing"},
{"id":"8cc55e26dfb047b09f222d7967f2a047","key":
["repository.repositoryfile",
"ownerid","filename"],"value":null,"doc":
{"_id
":"8cc55e26dfb047b09f222d7967f2a047
","_rev":"2138313893","OwnerId":"ownerId","Name":"filename"}}
]}
I'll have to update my code to handle that, but that's no big deal.
Unfortunately, I don't get back 412's when two threads attempt to
update the same revision of a document simultaneously. This
happens for both the bulk_docs api and the standard PUT api:
[info] [<0.3374.0>] 192.168.200.1 - - 'GET' /
fileinttests_20090112_105825_501_1818439740
/473dccb50cb54a57abe19e7687c491ce?rev=4134090793 200
[info] [<0.3371.0>] 192.168.200.1 - - 'GET' /
fileinttests_20090112_105825_501_1818439740
/473dccb50cb54a57abe19e7687c491ce?rev=4134090793 200
[info] [<0.3371.0>] 192.168.200.1 - - 'PUT' /
fileinttests_20090112_105825_501_1818439740
/473dccb50cb54a57abe19e7687c491ce 201
[info] [<0.3374.0>] 192.168.200.1 - - 'PUT' /
fileinttests_20090112_105825_501_1818439740
/473dccb50cb54a57abe19e7687c491ce 201
In the two threads that I have running, I first get the document I
want to revise and I then update the revision.
I have a sneaking suspicion that this is from the code that damien
commited a few days ago. Try adding a head like [1] to each of your
requests to check the status of each. Also, in your example, to
double
check that this is expected behavior, you should look at that
document
and verify it has a _conflict attribute. Remember that we're working
with eventual consistency here. This type of thing is expected and
it's your app's responsibility to figure things out.
[1] X-Couch-Full-Commit: true
HTH,
Paul Davis
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Anderson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 9:54 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Error when running two requests to same view
simultaneously
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Michael McDaniel <[email protected]
> wrote:
The short answer is that there is no function
couch_doc:to_json_doc/2
that accepts the arguments ( {not_found, missing}, [] ) gracefully
{function_clause,
[{couch_doc,to_json_obj,[{not_found,missing},[]]},
...
The problem seems to have been in the error handling in the
include_docs code. Do you mind updating to the latest trunk and
attempting to recreate the error? It should be fixed.
--
Chris Anderson
http://jchris.mfdz.com
