Bob, Ah, good point that I hadn't considered. I was only thinking about the case for leaves which would stick around, but this info definitely gets discarded for any revision that's not a leaf at compaction time.
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Robert Newson <[email protected]> wrote: > It's worth remembering that previous revisions are removed during > compaction and are not replicated (i.e, this isn't a versioning > facility for users). > > > B. > > On 18 December 2012 21:02, Paul Davis <[email protected]> wrote: >> While it won't appear in the changes feed, they do track the >> update_seq they originally had IIRC. I sure don't think we surface >> that anywhere. >> >> Ciprian, is there a specific need for this or is this for something >> app specific? >> >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Robert Newson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> The previous revision doesn't have a sequence number and won't appear >>> in the changes feed. >>> >>> B. >>> >>> On 18 December 2012 19:02, Ciprian Dorin Craciun >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Hello all! >>>> >>>> As noted in the subject I want to accomplish the following: having >>>> a particular document's revision I want to find out which is it's >>>> change sequence number. >>>> >>>> According to the documentation all I have to do is issue the >>>> following query to get the sequence number of the "latest" revision: >>>> http://.../database/document?revs_info=true&local_seq=true >>>> >>>> As such I've assumed that I can obtain that similarly even for >>>> previous revisions like this: >>>> >>>> http://.../database/document?rev=2-c33bbeaf4151d68d81f7e27f9cb0c03e&local_seq=true >>>> >>>> Unfortunately it doesn't work (as in it doesn't include any >>>> `_local_seq` attribute)... Any suggestions? >>>> >>>> (I know that I could find that information by scrolling through >>>> the `_changes` feed but that would be quite inefficient.) >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Ciprian.
