couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Samuel Newson <rnew...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] length restrictions in 4.0
Date Tue, 12 May 2020 21:58:24 GMT
deal.

> On 12 May 2020, at 22:50, Nick Vatamaniuc <vatamane@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 <rnewson@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 <wohali@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.
>> 


Mime
View raw message