[SERVER-810] updates that modify _id don't replicate correctly Created: 22/Mar/10 Updated: 12/Jul/16 Resolved: 27/Apr/10 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Core Server |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | 1.5.1 |
| Type: | Bug | Priority: | Major - P3 |
| Reporter: | Aaron Staple | Assignee: | Aaron Staple |
| Resolution: | Done | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Participants: |
| Description |
|
We could consider either making this work with replication or preventing updates to _id altogether. |
| Comments |
| Comment by auto [ 27/Apr/10 ] |
|
Author: {'login': 'astaple', 'name': 'Aaron', 'email': 'aaron@10gen.com'}Message: |
| Comment by auto [ 27/Apr/10 ] |
|
Author: {'login': 'astaple', 'name': 'Aaron', 'email': 'aaron@10gen.com'}Message: |
| Comment by Aaron Staple [ 23/Mar/10 ] |
|
I believe that on the slave the original {_id:1} will remain, and {_id:2} will be added as well. |
| Comment by Eliot Horowitz (Inactive) [ 22/Mar/10 ] |
|
hmm... what happens in that case right now? |
| Comment by Aaron Staple [ 22/Mar/10 ] |
|
No, I also mean situations like update( {_id:1}, {_id:2} ). When I was cleaning up the repl stuff before I was told not to worry about this case. |
| Comment by Eliot Horowitz (Inactive) [ 22/Mar/10 ] |
|
is this just $set or $inc on _id? |