+1 Default unlimited seems like an oversight regardless of what we change it to.
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 11:59 AM Eric Avdey <e...@eiri.ca> wrote: > > 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 > >>>> > >>> > >> >
