On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Dan Reverri <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've tried to provide a walk through below that explains the behavior. The > main lesson to take away is you should always provide a client id and vector > clock. >
Thanks for the description of what's going on. From your description, it looks like this is a class of bug that could be very difficult for clients to program defensively against. The case of a missing vclock is easy enough (flag a conflict against whatever was returned by the server), but what if a client erroneously issues two successive puts to the same bucket+key with the same vclock? Since clients have to treat vclocks as opaque, I can't think of a way to identify the case of "this put was rejected because the vclock was considered stale".
_______________________________________________ riak-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
