On Thursday, November 03, 2011 02:46:39 AM Erik Søe Sørensen wrote: > On 03-11-2011 07:39, Justin Karneges wrote: > > I wonder if anyone else is doing something like this. I also wonder if > > there is a flaw in this design. Since the lack of the cleanup key can > > indicate a successful commit, I wonder if there might be a problem with > > eventual consistency whereby some other node sees A and B but not the > > cleanup key because it hasn't propagated yet, and therefore thinks the > > keys are valid when in reality they aren't. Maybe causal consistency > > ensures this isn't a problem, since the cleanup key is written before A > > and B? > > If cluster-to-cluster replication is in play, there will be a problem > here, because the replication order (for full syncs at least) is > independent of the write order.
You're talking about a W + R <= N case? I am not sure, but my proposal probably only works if causal consistency can be guaranteed (provided it works the way I think it does). Justin _______________________________________________ riak-users mailing list riak-users@lists.basho.com http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
