deal.
> On 12 May 2020, at 22:50, Nick Vatamaniuc <vatam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>>
