I assume your talking about server admins (those listed in the .ini file), right? If you're talking about DB admins, than the problem is the same (reading the _security object from each db file).
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Damien Katz <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think end users need a list of dbs they can access on the server. > Think the simplest answer is to only support _all_dbs operation for admins > and be done. > > -Damien > > > On Mar 1, 2010, at 1:40 AM, Brian Candler wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 09:55:46AM +0100, Filipe David Manana wrote: > >>> The reason for no storing _security as a doc is an optimization. So we > >>> extend that optimization, and have something like a security_changed > event > >>> for a db, that the _dbs database can react to. The model isn't > different > >>> from subscribing to _changes, it'd just be a separate code path. > >> > >> That's a good idea (both simple and more efficient). > >> > >> The only issues left are the cases where the user adds a new DB file > >> (possibly coming from other server for e.g.) into the DB dir, deletes a > DB > >> file or replaces a DB file with an old version (a backup whose update > seq > >> number is from the past). > > ... > >> Do you think this would add too much overhead or it could be a somewhat > >> "light" approach? Or better, do you have a better idea for it? > > > > Just as an idea, you could just turn this on its head. Suppose _dbs was > the > > primary source of information; then the _security record within the > database > > is just a cached copy of that. It's easy enough to take a _changes feed > > from _dbs to update this cache. > > > > But in that case, the cache would be better kept in RAM, rather than > within > > the database file. > > > > After all, CouchDB already keeps a cache of open database filehandles, > > doesn't it? So you could read the security information from a regular > > document (an "expensive" operation) when you open the database, and then > > just continue to use that version thereafter. You'd invalidate the cache > if > > the corresponding _dbs object is updated. > > > > However this leaves the following issue: what if the database file is > > renamed on disk, or disk-copied to a different system which happens to > have > > an existing _dbs entry for that name? > > > > I think the best solution is for the _dbs database to be indexed by uuid. > > But to make this work efficiently, the database file *on disk* should > also > > be named by its uuid, rather than the database name. That's probably too > > big a change to swallow at this stage. > > > > But it does have some other side benefits (such as being able to "rename" > a > > database instantly without touching the filesystem, and being able to > > automatically spread a large number of databases across directories > without > > forcing the user to use database names like 00/xxx, 01/yyy, 02/zzz etc) > > > > Regards, > > > > Brian. > > -- Filipe David Manana, [email protected] PGP key - http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xC569452B "Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves. That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men."
