Ok, fair enough, +0 from me with a note that I'd still prefer to see this limit aligned with 4.x limits, so users wouldn't have to adjust to this change twice.
Eric > On Feb 1, 2021, at 14:47, Nick Vatamaniuc <vatam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I am +1 to lowering as it's better than infinity. > > But I also see Eric's point. I was surprised a while back just like > Eric that I could successfully upload >1GB-sized files. So why not > 0.5GB or 2GB? I am thinking 2GB was (is?) a common limit on some OSes > and file systems (FAT32) since they use ints for file size and > offsets. Since our attachment won't be saved as is in the file systems > inside a .couch file 2GB may be too high, so 1GB as a limit makes > sense to me. > > -Nick > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 1:25 PM Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> +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 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>
