[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1259?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13089841#comment-13089841
]
Randall Leeds commented on COUCHDB-1259:
----------------------------------------
I'd rather see the replicator respect a naming field. CouchDB core places no
specific significance on the replication documents, treating them as any other
document in the _local/ namespace. And we've heard a number of times,
especially in the last few weeks, about how config files (and specifically ones
that change) are ugly.
I proposed UUIDs at the DB level a long time ago for this reason, and relatedly
so that you could trigger push/pull without using HTTP at both sides and have
it be the same replication (discover that you are a host via UUID).
Configuration files would work to make it server level, but it's hacky.
DB-level is a bad idea because sysadmins might copy couch files. Ultimately,
the client should identify the replication if it can. I think that's the best
solution.
> Replication ID is not stable if local server has a dynamic port number
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: COUCHDB-1259
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1259
> Project: CouchDB
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Replication
> Affects Versions: 1.1
> Reporter: Jens Alfke
>
> I noticed that when Couchbase Mobile running on iOS replicates to/from a
> remote server (on iriscouch in this case), the replication has to fetch the
> full _changes feed every time it starts. Filipe helped me track down the
> problem -- the replication ID is coming out different every time. The reason
> for this is that the local port number, which is one of the inputs to the
> hash that generates the replication ID, is randomly assigned by the OS. (I.e.
> it uses a port number of 0 when opening its listener socket.) This is because
> there could be multiple apps using Couchbase Mobile running on the same
> device and we can't have their ports colliding.
> The underlying problem is that CouchDB is attempting to generate a unique ID
> for a particular pair of {source, destination} databases, but it's basing it
> on attributes that aren't fundamental to the database and can change, like
> the hostname or port number.
> One solution, proposed by Filipe and me, is to assign each database (or each
> server?) a random UUID when it's created, and use that to generate
> replication IDs.
> Another solution, proposed by Damien, is to have CouchDB let the client work
> out the replication ID on its own, and set it as a property in the
> replication document (or the JSON body of a _replicate request.) This is even
> more flexible and will handle tricky scenarios like full P2P replication
> where there may be no low-level way to uniquely identify the remote database
> being synced with.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
