Thanks Filipe. These are two excellent pieces of news. 1.2.0 is shaping up to be an awesome release.
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Filipe David Manana > Sent: 03 January 2012 16:05 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Delete replication history > > Also, in 1.2.0 you'll no longer need the hack of editing replication > checkpoint documents in order to bootstrap replications from a > particular sequence number. You can simply specify a parameter named > "since_seq" in replication objects/documents. > > On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Adam Kocoloski <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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! > > > > -- > Filipe David Manana, > > "Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world. > Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves. > That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men." Sophos Limited, The Pentagon, Abingdon Science Park, Abingdon, OX14 3YP, United Kingdom. Company Reg No 2096520. VAT Reg No GB 991 2418 08.
