The short of it is that building a database on top of object storage has generally required a complicated, distributed system for consensus/metadata. CAS makes it possible to build these big data systems without any other dependencies. This is a win for simplicity and reliability.
Thanks! Do they mention when the comparison is done? Is it before, after, or during an upload? (For instance, if I have a 4tb file in a multi part upload, would I only know it would fail as soon as the whole file is uploaded?)
(I assume) it will fail if the eTag doesn't match -- the instance it got the header.
The main point of it is: I have an object that I want to mutate. I think I have the latest version in memory. So I update in memory and upload it to S3 with the eTag of the version I have and tell it to only commit if that is the latest version. If it "fails", I re-download the object, re-apply the mutation, and try again.
I imagine, for it to make sense, that the comparison is done at the last possible moment, before atomically swapping the file contents.
Practically, they could do both: Do an early reject of a given POST in case the ETag does not match, but re-validate this just before swapping out the objects (and committing to considering the given request as the successful one globally).
That said, I'm not sure if common HTTP libraries look at response headers before they're done posting a response body, or if that's even allowed/possible in HTTP? It seems feasible at a first glance with chunked encoding, at least.
Edit: Upon looking a bit, it seems that informational response codes, e.g. 100 (Continue) in combination with Expect 100-continue in the requests, could enable just that and avoid an extra GET with If-Match.
I can imagine it might be useful to make this a choice for databases with high frequency small swaps and occasional large ones.
1) default, load-compare-&-swap for small fast load/swaps.
2) optional, compare-load-&-swap to allow a large load to pass its compare, and cut in front of all the fast small swap that would otherwise create an un-hittable moving target during its long loads for its own compare.
3) If the load itself was stable relative to the compare, then it could be pre-loaded and swapped into a holding location, followed by as many fast compare-&-swaps as needed to get it into the right location.