Ok, fine, let's not worry about it the 238 limit then, I'll yield :-) But, if we are going by file system file name limits as a guide, in general, most of them are 255 not 256, so let's go with that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 5:29 PM Robert Samuel Newson <rnew...@apache.org> wrote: > > 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. >
