Dean Landolt wrote: --snip -- > Interesting read -- and good examples. But I would argue there are more than > philosophical drawbacks. As I understand it, it would mean giving up the > replication feature entirely. Forever...or at least as long as bulk-docs are > relied upon. There's more to replication than scaling (fault tolerance, for > one). If your application absolutely needs transactions, and you can't > design around it (e.g. doc-level transactions), you may need another tool > for the job -- one not named for a "cluster of unreliable commodity > hardware". >
Could you explain why it would mean giving up on replication completely? Tim The possible application I'm talking about doesn't need transactions, they just need a simple way of rolling back a set of changes (preferably atomically but not necessarily). I'm not looking to banish conflicts, just minimise them where possible.
