You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to oak-issues@jackrabbit.apache.org by "Marcel Reutegger (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2015/04/01 16:22:53 UTC
[jira] [Assigned] (OAK-2673) Resolve add-add, delete-delete merge
conflict for empty hidden docs
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-2673?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Marcel Reutegger reassigned OAK-2673:
-------------------------------------
Assignee: Marcel Reutegger
> Resolve add-add, delete-delete merge conflict for empty hidden docs
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-2673
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-2673
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: mongomk
> Reporter: Vikas Saurabh
> Assignee: Marcel Reutegger
> Fix For: 1.2
>
> Attachments: OAK-2673-Adding-resolution-of-same-name-conflicts-ad(take2).patch, OAK-2673-HiddenNodeSameNameMergeConflict.patch
>
>
> While OAK-1550 is about general fix for resolving same node merge conflicts. But until general issue is fixed, we should special case for hidden nodes (e.g. index sub-tree).
> Discussed offline with [~mreutegg] and [~chetanm] about handling merge conflict for hidden nodes. Main concern to not resolve the conflict seemed to be observation (specifying/declaring what events reach which clients). For hidden nodes, observation isn't a concern. Along with that, in heavy write scenarios there are some cases (I'm aware of property index updates) which often cause conflicts -- thereby wasting some time during merge attempts.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)