You'd have to replicate "back" and adjust the target db name to fit. It doesn't feel like a terrible hardship.
> On 12 May 2020, at 21:54, Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org> wrote: > > I presume the workaround would be "Replicate back to CouchDB 3.x, but > truncate to 236 characters in the process?" You'd lose fidelity in the db > name that way. > > -Joan > > On 2020-05-12 4:05 p.m., Robert Newson wrote: >> I still don’t understand how the internal shard database name format has any >> bearing on our public interface, present or future.
