On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Adam Kocoloski <adam.kocolo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > A bit more work is required, I think. In addition to inserting MVCC commit > point markers in the replication stream, we'd also have to include all the > document/rev pairs that were part of the _bulk_docs update. As it stands > today, if one of those documents is updated again it will only show up at > the later update_seq. > > This could actually get pretty hairy, now that I think of it. What happens > during compaction? Do we save old revisions of a document if the revision > was part of a _bulk_docs update? >
Bulk transactions are starting to sound like they'd need to have a lot of the same semantics as we've been treating documents as having. -- Chris Anderson http://jchris.mfdz.com
