Jan

On hold for now

The RocksDB storage engine in ArangoDB *intentionally* does not use any collection locks, in order to allow for higher parallel throughput. That means two concurrent requests/transactions may update the same...

Yes. Because if they would be let through, then one transaction would just overwrite data of another, without the client application getting a chance to detect this.

@irriss : there are two solutions for this, but they are both available in our current devel version and will be released with ArangoDB 3.4: * use "overwrite" option in...

An upstream test has shown a potential problem: https://circleci.com/gh/facebook/rocksdb/445331?utm_campaign=vcs-integration-link&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github-build-link Setting this PR's status to draft until clarified. **Update**: problem solved

@solisoft : thanks a lot for your contribution! I'd like to work on integrating your patch, but for legal reasons we need you to fill out and sign our Contributor...

@goedderz : while it is true that in our case we cannot represent certain numbers exactly in a fixed-width floating-point value, rounding a value to a _near_ representable value may...

@solisoft : I will move this forward during the next few days, ensuring review, testing and such. As I will not be working tomorrow and the day after, it may...

@solisoft: after reading the suggestion from @goedderz, I think it could make sense to turn this function from `ROUND(number, precision) -> number` into `TO_FIXED(number, precision) -> string`. WDYT?

Functionality continued via PR https://github.com/arangodb/arangodb/pull/15414. That is a separate PR because unfortunately our CI infrastructure doesn't support pulling from different origins.