This vote is now closed as there were three +1s, one +0 and no -1s and the 72 hours is up. I'll merge the PR.
Thanks to all who voted! Donat On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 7:52 PM Eric Avdey <e...@eiri.ca> wrote: > > 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 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> >
