+1， but why including root, i think the user could ignore the "root" when we change sg to database. And we could ignore the root in the file path. And, the sql select from root.dbname and select from dbname all are ok to keep compatible.
Thanks! Chao Wang BONC ltd ccgow...@163.com 在2022年11月18日 18:02，冯 庆新<qingxin.f...@hotmail.com> 写道： Agree with ‘add constraint to the length of database name’,but Can we choose a value greater than 64? 发件人: Jialin Qiao<mailto:qiaojia...@apache.org> 发送时间: 2022年11月18日 16:15 收件人: dev@iotdb.apache.org<mailto:dev@iotdb.apache.org> 主题: Re: Add constraint to the length of database name +1 ————————————————— Jialin Qiao Apache IoTDB PMC 周钰坤 <zykun0...@gmail.com> 于2022年11月18日周五 15:44写道： Hi, We want to add constraint to the length of database name, as most popular database systems have such constraint as well, for example the length of database name in Mysql shall not exceed 64. Currently, the maximum length of database name, including "root.", is *64* and it is immutable. Such constraint can help avoid some bugs of database and region management, since we use database names in the directory name, which shall not exceed the max name length defined by file system. best regards ------------------------ Yukun Zhou, Tsinghua University
