Is the argument that Mongo’s documentation isn’t clear?
"In order to obtain snapshot isolation, users must be careful not only to set the read concern to snapshot for each transaction, but also to set write concern for each transaction to majority. Astonishingly, this applies even to read-only transactions."
"This behavior might be surprising, but to MongoDB’s credit, most of this behavior is clearly laid out in the transactions documentation… MongoDB offers database and collection-level safety settings precisely so users can assume all operations interacting with those databases or collections use those settings; ignoring read and write concern settings when users perform (presumably) safety-critical operations is surprising!"
Yes, I agree as far as the end user is concerned, they are losing data either way.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23271211
The timing of this is absolutely beautiful.
I don’t have a dog in the Mongo fight. I haven’t done an implementation on top of it in years and probably the next time I do something with “Mongo” it will probably be AWS’s Document DB with Mongo support. That’s based on AWS’s own code and storage tier and doesn’t have the same characteristics as Mongo proper.
If you ask me, if there's something worse than Mongo it's Document DB.
> the newer MongoDB 4.2.6 has more problems including “retrocausal transactions” where a transaction reverses order so that a read can see the result of a future write.
