-1 on _skip_validation and new role One can always write a validation document that considers the role, no? Why can't users who need this functionality craft a validation function for this purpose? This sounds like a blog post and not a database feature.
+0 on _dump/_load If it ships raw .couch files I'm totally against it because I think the HTTP API should remain as independent of implementation details as possible. If it is non-incremental I don't see significant benefit, unless it's just to traverse the document index and ignore the sequence index as a way to skip reads, but this seems like a weak argument. If it's incremental, well, then, that's replication, and we already have that. -Randall On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 11:40, Adam Kocoloski <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jean-Pierre, I'm not quite sure I follow that line of reasoning. A user > with _admin privileges on the database can easily remove any validation > functions prior to writing today. In my proposal skipping validation would > require _admin rights and an explicit opt-in on a per-request basis. What > are you trying to guard against with those validation functions? Best, > > Adam > > On Aug 16, 2011, at 2:29 PM, Jean-Pierre Fiset wrote: > > > I understand the issue brought by Adam since in our CouchDb application, > there is a need to have a replicator role and the validation functions skip > most of the tests if the role is set for the current user. > > > > On the other hand, at the current time, I am not in favour of making > super users for the sake of replication. Although it might solve the > particular problem stated, it removes the ability for a design document to > enforce some "invariant" properties of a database. > > > > Since there is already a way to allow a "replicator" to perform any > changes (role + proper validation function), I do not see the need for this > change. Since the super replicator user removes the ability that a database > has to protect the consistency of its data, and that there does not seem to > be a work-around, I would rather not see this change pushed to CouchDb. > > > > JP > > > > On 11-08-16 10:26 AM, Adam Kocoloski wrote: > >> One of the principal uses of the replicator is to "make this database > look like that one". We're unable to do that in the general case today > because of the combination of validation functions and out-of-order document > transfers. It's entirely possible for a document to be saved in the source > DB prior to the installation of a ddoc containing a validation function that > would have rejected the document, for the replicator to install the ddoc in > the target DB before replicating the other document, and for the other > document to then be rejected by the target DB. > >> > >> I propose we add a role which allows a user to bypass validation, or > else extend that privilege to the _admin role. We should still validate > updates by default and add a way (a new qs param, for instance) to indicate > that validation should be skipped for a particular update. Thoughts? > >> > >> Adam > > > >
