But we don't need to add a file extension or a timestamp to database names.
B. > On 4 May 2020, at 18:42, Nick Vatamaniuc <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > Good idea, +1 with one minor tweak: database name length in versions > <4.0 was restricted by the maximum file name on whatever file system > the server was running on. In practice that was 255, then there is an > extension and a timestamp in the filename which made the db name limit > be 238 so I suggest to use that instead. > > -Nick > > On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 11:51 AM Robert Samuel Newson <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I think I speak for many in accepting the risk that we're excluding doc ids >> formed from 4096-bit RSA signatures. >> >> I don't think I made it clear but I think these should be fixed limits (i.e, >> not configurable) in order to ensure inter-replication between couchdb >> installations wherever they are. >> >> B. >> >>> On 4 May 2020, at 10:52, Ilya Khlopotov <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Thank you Robert for starting this important discussion. I think that the >>> values you propose make sense. >>> I can see a case when user would use hashes as document ids. All existent >>> hash functions I am aware of should return data which fit into 512 >>> characters. There is only one case which doesn't fit into 512 limit. If >>> user would decide to use RSA signatures as document ids and they use 4096 >>> bytes sized keys the signature size would be 684 bytes. >>> >>> However in this case users can easily replace signatures with hashes of >>> signatures. So I wouldn't worry about it to much. 512 sounds plenty to me. >>> >>> +1 to set hard limits on db name size and doc id size with proposed values. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> iilyak >>> >>> On 2020/05/01 18:36:45, Robert Samuel Newson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> There are other threads related to doc size (etc) limits for CouchDB 4.0, >>>> motivated by restrictions in FoundationDB, but we haven't discussed >>>> database name length and doc id length limits. These are encoded into >>>> FoundationDB keys and so we would be wise to forcibly limit their length >>>> from the start. >>>> >>>> I propose 256 character limit for database name and 512 character limit >>>> for doc ids. >>>> >>>> If you can't uniquely identify your database or document within those >>>> limits I argue that you're doing something wrong, and the limits here, >>>> while making FDB happy, are an aid to sensible application design. >>>> >>>> Does anyone want higher or lower limits? Comments pls. >>>> >>>> B. >>>> >>>> >>
