That would be “do-not-overwrite”.
wunder
Walter Underwood
wun...@wunderwood.org
http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog)
> On Nov 27, 2019, at 4:38 PM, Walter Underwood wrote:
>
> Even if that works, it is evil as something to leave in a client codebase.
> Maybe a do-no-overwrite flag would
Even if that works, it is evil as something to leave in a client codebase.
Maybe a do-no-overwrite flag would be useful.
wunder
Walter Underwood
wun...@wunderwood.org
http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog)
> On Nov 27, 2019, at 3:24 PM, Alexandre Rafalovitch wrote:
>
> How about Optimistic
Oops. And the link...
https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/6_6/updating-parts-of-documents.html#UpdatingPartsofDocuments-OptimisticConcurrency
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 6:24 PM Alexandre Rafalovitch,
wrote:
> How about Optimistic Concurrency with _version_ set to negative value?
>
> You could inject
How about Optimistic Concurrency with _version_ set to negative value?
You could inject that extra value in URP chain if need be.
Regards,
Alex
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 5:41 PM Aaron Hoffer, wrote:
> We want to prevent Solr from overwriting an existing document if document's
> ID already exis
We want to prevent Solr from overwriting an existing document if document's
ID already exists in the core.
This unit test fails because the update/overwrite is permitted:
public void testUpdateProhibited() {
final Index index = baseInstance();
indexRepository.save(index);
Index index0 = ind
