Hi, I think I speak for many in accepting the risk that we're excluding doc ids formed from 4096-bit RSA signatures.
I don't think I made it clear but I think these should be fixed limits (i.e, not configurable) in order to ensure inter-replication between couchdb installations wherever they are. B. > On 4 May 2020, at 10:52, Ilya Khlopotov <iil...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hello, > > Thank you Robert for starting this important discussion. I think that the > values you propose make sense. > I can see a case when user would use hashes as document ids. All existent > hash functions I am aware of should return data which fit into 512 > characters. There is only one case which doesn't fit into 512 limit. If user > would decide to use RSA signatures as document ids and they use 4096 bytes > sized keys the signature size would be 684 bytes. > > However in this case users can easily replace signatures with hashes of > signatures. So I wouldn't worry about it to much. 512 sounds plenty to me. > > +1 to set hard limits on db name size and doc id size with proposed values. > > Best regards, > iilyak > > On 2020/05/01 18:36:45, Robert Samuel Newson <rnew...@apache.org> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> There are other threads related to doc size (etc) limits for CouchDB 4.0, >> motivated by restrictions in FoundationDB, but we haven't discussed database >> name length and doc id length limits. These are encoded into FoundationDB >> keys and so we would be wise to forcibly limit their length from the start. >> >> I propose 256 character limit for database name and 512 character limit for >> doc ids. >> >> If you can't uniquely identify your database or document within those limits >> I argue that you're doing something wrong, and the limits here, while making >> FDB happy, are an aid to sensible application design. >> >> Does anyone want higher or lower limits? Comments pls. >> >> B. >> >>
