https://github.com/cloudant/couch_replicator/commit/7feec1bd998264dd8
sorry, I should wait until I've had coffee :) On Oct 7, 2012, at 8:32 AM, Octavian Damiean <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd be interested to read that if you insert the URL too Bob. :) > > On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Bob Dionne > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> There used to be an advantage to using PULL but that's no longer the case. >> >> However PULL replications are a bit more stable when attachments are >> involved, so I'd recommend them over PUSH. I've described the problem >> here[1] in BigCouch if you're interested in the details. >> >> On Oct 7, 2012, at 5:04 AM, Nick North <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I'm also interested in whether there is a preference for push or pull >> with >>> CouchDb 1.2. I have a full-mesh replication setup using pull replication, >>> but have no idea whether push might be better in some way. Is there a >>> replication guru out there who could enlighten us? >>> Nick >>> On 4 October 2012 17:48, Dave Cottlehuber <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On 4 October 2012 17:04, Steve Koppelman <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Assuming a hubless (i.e. not master-slave) set of 4 couchdb 1.2.0 >>>>> servers behind a load balancer, is there a recommended best-practice >>>>> for setting up the replication relationships? I'm most interested in: >>>>> >>>>> * Assuming the _replicator document is on one of the two nodes in a >>>>> relationship, is there a preference for push vs. pull replication >>>>> relationships? I seem to recall pull as being regarded as more >>>>> reliable than push through 1.1.1. >>>> >>>> Hope somebody else comments on this, I'm interested to know if this >>>> still makes a difference. >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>
