On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 01:46:54PM -0700, Chris Anderson wrote: > > Exactly. It'd be a "trivial" change to the batch=ok feature to add > > wait=true so that the client hangs open on the connection and receives > > a 201 Created when the batch is committed. It'd actually be sort of a > > challenging patch, but I can perhaps add it before 1.0. > > > > I've added it to Jira here: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-356 > > Forgot to mention that you can almost get this now by using batch=ok > and then when the client wants to be sure that the batch is committed, > send a POST to /db/_ensure_full_commit > > You'll have a little more http overhead this way but the semantics are > mostly the same.
Hmm. So what are the semantics? Are you saying that _ensure_full_commit doesn't actually cause a commit, but waits until the next commit takes place? (What if the commit had already taken place?) Also: what exactly is the difference with or without batch=ok? Does batch=ok mean that the doc sits in CouchDB's RAM buffer, and without it, it gets written out to the kernel's VFS buffer (also in RAM)? In that case, I can't really see why they would be any different from the client's point of view. But I've probably misunderstood. Regards, Brian.
