Yes, if you are running n=1/w=1/r=1 in BigCouch or CouchDB after the merge, you will see the same behaviour as today's CouchDB 1.x.
I will disclaim this to say that the Ektorp driver is not part of Apache CouchDB and I have no knowledge of what it does with HTTP 202 responses. Post-merge, Ektorp (and other 3rd party drivers) will need to be enhanced to understand and report 202 responses, where they arise (from n>1 scenarios). -Joan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Klaus Schroiff" <kla...@fast.au.fujitsu.com> To: user@couchdb.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 2:57:36 AM Subject: RE: Re: BigCouch merge - conflict management Hi Joan, Essentially I am referring to https://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/HTTP_Bulk_Document_API Section "Modify Multiple Documents With a Single Request": "If the _rev does not match the current version of the document, then that particular document will not be saved and will be reported as a conflict, but this does not prevent other documents in the batch from being saved." Thus is this the same behaviour in BigCouch when using [n=1] (no shard replication) ? Thanks Klaus --- Thanks, Joan! Just for the sake of clarification - ignoring implications from "external" replication: Assuming that you configure [n=1] in BigCouch, thus no replicas of your shards - I guess that in this case, there's "a single responsible master node" since the document is hosted on exactly one server, right ? Now in case of an update attempt using an old document revision - is the updated rejected or not ? Maybe I am a bit confused here - the guide (http://guide.couchdb.org/draft/conflicts.html) always refers to replication in the scope of conflict management. I am more interested in "conventional" update conflicts during "normal" ops - no idea whether there's a difference internally. So far I assumed there is. Please note that I am using the Ektorp Driver thus I am not all that familiar with the expected HTTP return code. All I'm seeing is a UpdateConflictException in the case mentioned above. I assumed that "this is it" and that I have to merge manually (perfectly fine) and that the current version won and the old version was not stored (as a loser) simply because this would be actually pretty pointless in this case. But maybe I am assuming too much ... :-)
