Yup, that's what prompted the post, actually. I had started from the point of view that external attachments would be optional. That brings quite a lot of complexity, so I'm basically asking if there's any objections to moving wholly over to this new strategy?
B. On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Paul Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Randall Leeds <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Just one note below for now. >> >> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 05:20, Robert Newson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> All, >>> >>> Most of you know that I'm currently working on 'external attachments'. >>> I've spent quite some time reading and modifying the current code and >>> have tried several approaches to the problem. I've implemented one >>> version fairly completely >>> (https://github.com/rnewson/couchdb/tree/external_attachments) which >>> places any attachment over a threshold (defaulting to 256 kb) into a >>> separate file (and all files that are sent chunked). This branch works >>> for PUT/GET/DELETE, local and remote replication and compaction. >>> External attachments do not support compression or ranges yet. >> >> [snip] >> >>> Pro >>> 1) we can remove the 4k blocking in .couch files. >> >> Not if we have a threshold for external storage. Only if *all* >> attachments are external. >> Yes? >> >> -Randall >> > > Yes. >
