Re: [VOTE] Set a finite default for max_attachment_size

2021-02-01 Thread Russell Branca
A belated +1. Infinite attachment size is obviously an oversight, and practically speaking, I think gigabyte sized attachments are still way too big. I would love to see a solid binary attachment system with CouchDB, but neither couch_file nor FDB are likely to be it. -Russell On Mon, Feb 1,

Re: [VOTE] Set a finite default for max_attachment_size

2021-02-01 Thread Joan Touzet
HI Donat, Point of order - when we do 72-hour votes, it's best to not count weekends in that 72-hours. So, since you started on the 28th at 05:00 UTC, I would have continued the vote until Feb 2 at 05:00 UTC. That said I am +1 on this too, long overdue. As to Eric's point, all we need to do is

Re: [VOTE] Set a finite default for max_attachment_size

2021-02-01 Thread Bessenyei Balázs Donát
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 wrote: > > Ok, fair enough, +0 from me with a note that I'd still prefer to see this > limit aligned with

Re: [VOTE] Set a finite default for max_attachment_size

2021-02-01 Thread Eric Avdey
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 wrote: > > I am +1 to lowering as it's better than infinity. > > But I also see

Re: [VOTE] Set a finite default for max_attachment_size

2021-02-01 Thread Nick Vatamaniuc
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

Re: [VOTE] Set a finite default for max_attachment_size

2021-02-01 Thread Paul Davis
+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 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 >

Re: [VOTE] Set a finite default for max_attachment_size

2021-02-01 Thread Eric Avdey
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

Re: [VOTE] Set a finite default for max_attachment_size

2021-02-01 Thread Bessenyei Balázs Donát
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