couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick Vatamaniuc <vatam...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] length restrictions in 4.0
Date Tue, 12 May 2020 21:50:04 GMT
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