I suspect he means when replicating back to a 3.x or 2.x cluster.
On 2020-05-04 3:03 p.m., Robert Samuel Newson wrote:
But we don't need to add a file extension or a timestamp to database names.
B.
On 4 May 2020, at 18:42, Nick Vatamaniuc <vatam...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
