On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Adam Kocoloski <adam.kocolo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 9, 2009, at 11:23 AM, Paul Davis wrote: > >>>> Assuming the replication processes doesn't interleave documents from >>>> different MVCC commits, >>> >>> I believe that's correct. >>> >> >> I think it's only correct if you don't edit the doc after the >> _bulk_docs call. Making two calls to _bulk_docs and then editing a >> document from the first transaction would make things interleave I >> think. > > It sounds like we're on the same page, Paul. If you define a commit as a > list of id/rev pairs there's no interleaving. Call the doc that was edited > twice A/"foo" and A/"bar". A/"foo" is part of the first _bulk_docs, and it > disappears from the replication stream once A/"bar" lands. > > Adam >
In that case I'd agree, but as I understand it the data associated with A/"foo" never gets replicated, only the _id/rev pair to inform the other side that the state existed. And further it's only replicated when the process gets to A/"bar". I'm a bit hazy on the details, but my understanding is that it'd be impossible to have knowledge of A/"foo" prior to reaching A/"bar" in the update_seq. As in, knowledge of the update_seq for A/"foo" is removed (Other than it happened before A/"bar" that is). HTH, Paul Davis
