[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-837?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12892572#action_12892572
]
Paul Joseph Davis commented on COUCHDB-837:
-------------------------------------------
@filipe - Awesome
@janl - I'd agree with Simon that stale=once is too clever and could be
misleading.
@Chris - okgo makes me laugh
@Simon - So far I think this is the best proposal. There are two intentions,
and unless a sufficiently acceptable value for stale can be found that
indicates both, then I'd say two parameters is probably best
@Chrisagain - While I agree that stale=ok was never intended to serve as a way
to delay index updates, I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few people are using
it to schedule index updates for off-peak traffic times. We could argue that
the default should be to reindex with a new stale=noreindex option or some such
though.
@jira - I wish you didn't suck so much.
> Adding stale=partial
> --------------------
>
> Key: COUCHDB-837
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-837
> Project: CouchDB
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Environment: all released and unreleased versions
> Reporter: Filipe Manana
> Assignee: Filipe Manana
> Attachments: stale_partial.patch
>
>
> Inspired by Matthias' latest post, at
> http://www.paperplanes.de/2010/7/26/10_annoying_things_about_couchdb.html,
> section "Views are updated on read access", I added a new value to the
> "stale" option named "partial" (possibly we need to find a better name).
> It behaves exactly like "stale=ok" but after replying to the client, it
> triggers a view update in the background.
> Patch attached.
> If no one disagrees this isn't a good feature, or suggest a better parameter
> value name, I'll commit.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
