On Jan 3, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Filipe David Manana wrote: > On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Adam Kocoloski <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:23 AM, Paul Hirst wrote: >> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Robert Newson [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> Sent: 24 December 2011 12:46 >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: Delete replication history >>>> >>>> I believe Jim is referring to the replication checkpoint document >>>> (which does indeed include 'historical' information). Jim is also >>>> correct in that the presence of this document will prevent a full >>>> re-replication when the target's validate_doc_update function is >>>> altered. >>>> >>>> Jim, the replication checkpoint document is named in the way: >>>> /dbname/_local/<hash>. You should be able to see this document being >>>> written to in the logs and the <hash> portion is also the value you >>>> get back when POST'ing to _replicate (and the one shown in >>>> _active_tasks). Delete the document in the usual fashion and >>>> replication will do over from the start. >>> >>> I've only ever been able to find the hash value in the log. If it's in >>> _active_tasks where is it? >>> >>> My replication entries in _active_tasks look like >>> >>> ba3959: http://myserver.example:5984/mydb/ -> mydb >>> >>> And I don't believe ba3959 is long enough. Isn't the hash an MD5 of the >>> replication information? >>> >>> If there was a way to get it out of _active_tasks it would be extremely >>> convenient. >>> >>> Sophos Limited, The Pentagon, Abingdon Science Park, Abingdon, OX14 3YP, >>> United Kingdom. >>> Company Reg No 2096520. VAT Reg No GB 991 2418 08. >> >> >> Currently _active_tasks only reports the first six characters of the hash. >> I'm not opposed to having it report the full hash, especially now that the >> _active_tasks output is semi-structured. > > The branch for the next major release, 1.2.x, already reports the full > id (unlike all current releases which only report the first 6 > characters in _active_tasks).
Ah, thanks for the correction Filipe!
