Hi,
There is a fundamental incompatibility between CouchDB using couch_file/btree
and CouchDB using FDB.
The choice at hand here is between two different forms of compatibility break;
1) All responses that were over a single snapshot in CouchDB 1/2/3 will still
be over a single snapshot in
If this proposal means v3.x replicators can't replicate one-shot /
normal / non-continuous changes from 4.x+ endpoints, that sounds like a
big break in compatibility.
I'm -0.5, tending towards -1, but mostly because I'm having trouble
understanding if it's even possible - unless a proposal is
-1?
I've read over the thread and looked at the foundationdb docs, but I'm
not sure I understand something about the proposal. Given a client
that makes a `_all_docs?include_docs=true` or similar query on a
particular db and that db reaches enough data to always take longer to
work with than the
> I withdraw my vote until I can get a clearer view. Nick would you mind
re-stating?
Not at all! The longer version and other considerations was stated in
my last reply to the discussion thread so I assumed that was accepted
as a consensus since nobody replied arguing otherwise.
The vote is on the proposal text in the quote.
> On 9 Jan 2021, at 04:37, Nick V wrote:
>
> +1 for 1 through 3
>
> -1 for 4 as I think the exception should apply to normal change feeds as
> well, as described in the thread
>
> Cheers,
> -Nick
>
>> On Jan 8, 2021, at 17:12, Joan Touzet
Wait, what? I thought you agreed with this approach in that thread.
I withdraw my vote until I can get a clearer view. Nick would you mind
re-stating?
-Joan
On 2021-01-08 11:37 p.m., Nick V wrote:
+1 for 1 through 3
-1 for 4 as I think the exception should apply to normal change feeds as
+1 for 1 through 3
-1 for 4 as I think the exception should apply to normal change feeds as well,
as described in the thread
Cheers,
-Nick
> On Jan 8, 2021, at 17:12, Joan Touzet wrote:
>
> Thanks, then it's a solid +1 from me.
>
> -Joan
>
>> On 2021-01-08 4:13 p.m., Robert Newson wrote:
Thanks, then it's a solid +1 from me.
-Joan
On 2021-01-08 4:13 p.m., Robert Newson wrote:
You are probably thinking of a possible “group commit”. That is anticipated and
not contradicted by this proposal. This proposal is explicitly about not using
multiple states of the database for a
You are probably thinking of a possible “group commit”. That is anticipated and
not contradicted by this proposal. This proposal is explicitly about not using
multiple states of the database for a single doc lookup, view query, etc.
> On 8 Jan 2021, at 19:53, Joan Touzet wrote:
>
> +1.
>
>
+1
-Russell
On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 11:54 AM Joan Touzet wrote:
> +1.
>
> This is for now I presume, as I thought that there was feeling about
> relaxing this restriction somewhat for the 5.0 timeframe? Memory's dim.
>
> -Joan
>
> On 07/01/2021 06:00, Robert Newson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
+1.
This is for now I presume, as I thought that there was feeling about
relaxing this restriction somewhat for the 5.0 timeframe? Memory's dim.
-Joan
On 07/01/2021 06:00, Robert Newson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Following on from the discussion at
>
+1
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 5:03 AM Robert Newson wrote:
>
> +1
>
> > On 7 Jan 2021, at 11:00, Robert Newson wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Following on from the discussion at
> >
+1
> On 7 Jan 2021, at 11:00, Robert Newson wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Following on from the discussion at
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rac6c90c4ae03dc055c7e8be6eca1c1e173cf2f98d2afe6d018e62d29%40%3Cdev.couchdb.apache.org%3E
>
>
13 matches
Mail list logo