Hello everyone, Good idea, +1 with one minor tweak: database name length in versions <4.0 was restricted by the maximum file name on whatever file system the server was running on. In practice that was 255, then there is an extension and a timestamp in the filename which made the db name limit be 238 so I suggest to use that instead.
-Nick On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 11:51 AM Robert Samuel Newson <rnew...@apache.org> wrote: > > 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. > >> > >> >
