Maybe I didn't express myself clear enough. Setting some finit default is not a purpose, it's what you are doing and I'm asking what the reason for this change. In other words I'm not asking what are you doing, I'm asking why are you doing this.
Introducing a new limit will be a breaking change to anoyone who uploads attachments larger than that limit, obviously, so "assumed 1G is large enough" sounds really arbitrary to me without any factual support for that assumption. Eric > On Feb 1, 2021, at 13:15, Bessenyei Balázs Donát <bes...@apache.org> wrote: > > The purpose of this vote / PR is to set _some_ finite default. I went > with 1G as I assumed that would not break anyone's production system. > I'd support decreasing that limit over time. > > The vote has been open for 72 hours now, but I believe it still needs > two more +1s to pass. > > > Donat > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 10:44 PM Eric Avdey <e...@eiri.ca> wrote: >> >> This got me curious and I tried to upload Ubuntu image as an attachment. >> Interestingly CouchDB 3.x accepted first 1.4G of 2.8G file and then returned >> proper 201 response with a new doc revision, which I certanly didn't expect. >> Should say, that 1.4G seems suspiciously similar to a normal memory limit >> for a 32 bit process. >> >> Putting this aside, I agree that uploading large attachments is an >> anti-pattern and 1G seems excessive, hence my question. I'd expect this >> number to be based on something and correlating it with a technical limit >> in 4.x makes a lot of sense to me. >> >> >> Eric >> >> >>> On Jan 28, 2021, at 16:02, Robert Newson <rnew...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I think a gigabyte is _very_ generous given our experience of this feature >>> in practice. >>> >>> In 4.x attachment size will necessarily be much more restrictive, so it >>> seems prudent to move toward that limit. >>> >>> I don’t think many folks (hopefully no one!) is routinely inserting >>> attachments over 1 gib today, I’d be fairly surprised if it even works. >>> >>> B. >>> >>>> On 28 Jan 2021, at 19:42, Eric Avdey <e...@eiri.ca> wrote: >>>> >>>> There is no justification neither here or on the PR for this change, i.e. >>>> why this is done. Original infinity default was set to preserve previous >>>> behaviour, this change will inadvertently break workflow for users who >>>> upload large attachment and haven't set explicit default, so why is it >>>> fine to do now? There might be some discussion around this somewhere, but >>>> it'd be nice to include it here for sake of people like me who's out of >>>> the loop. >>>> >>>> Also 1G limit seems arbitrary - how was it choosen? >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Eric >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jan 28, 2021, at 01:46, Bessenyei Balázs Donát <bes...@apache.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi All, >>>>> >>>>> In https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/3347 I'm proposing to set a >>>>> finite default for max_attachment_size . >>>>> The PR is approved, but as per Ilya's request, I'd like to call for a >>>>> lazy majority vote here. >>>>> The vote will remain open for at least 72 hours from now. >>>>> >>>>> Please let me know if you have any questions, comments or concerns. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Donat >>>> >>> >>
