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 18:52:20 GMT
I still like it. It's only 18 bytes difference but it introduces one
more compatibility issue. At least for 4.x, it would be nice to have
less of those and we can always increase it later. But if other
participants think it's too nitpick-y and odd I am happy to go with
256.

-Nick

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:24 AM Robert Samuel Newson <rnewson@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Sorry to let this thread drop.
>
> Nick, are you still preferring 238?
>
> B.
>
> > On 4 May 2020, at 21:06, Robert Samuel Newson <rnewson@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Ah, ok, understood. I don't think that's a compelling reason to fix our maximum
database name length at 238.
> >
> > CouchDB 4.0 will be the first version of CouchDB where we're not coupled to the
filesystem for this list. 256 is very common for a filesystem filename length limit (though
not universal) so I don't think our history should dictate an odd (fine, _even_) choice of
238.
> >
> > B.
> >
> >
> >> On 4 May 2020, at 20:41, Nick Vatamaniuc <vatamane@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> It will prevent replicating from db created in 4.0 which has a name
> >> longer than 238 (say 250) back to 2.x/3.x if the user intends to keep
> >> the same database name on both systems, that's what I meant.
> >>
> >> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 3:15 PM Robert Samuel Newson <rnewson@apache.org>
wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The 'timestamp in filename' is only on the internal shards, which would
not be part of a replication between 2.x/3.x and 4.x.
> >>>
> >>> In any case, Nick is suggesting lowering from 256 charts to 238 chars to
leave room for these things that won't be there. I confess I don't understand the reasoning.
> >>>
> >>> B.
> >>>
> >>>> On 4 May 2020, at 20:04, Joan Touzet <wohali@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I suspect he means when replicating back to a 3.x or 2.x cluster.
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2020-05-04 3:03 p.m., Robert Samuel Newson wrote:
> >>>>> But we don't need to add a file extension or a timestamp to database
names.
> >>>>> B.
> >>>>>> On 4 May 2020, at 18:42, Nick Vatamaniuc <vatamane@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hello everyone,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Good idea, +1 with one minor tweak: database name length in
versions
> >>>>>> <4.0 was restricted by the maximum file name on whatever
file system
> >>>>>> the server was running on. In practice that was 255, then there
is an
> >>>>>> extension and a timestamp in the filename which made the db
name limit
> >>>>>> be 238 so I suggest to use that instead.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -Nick
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 11:51 AM Robert Samuel Newson <rnewson@apache.org>
wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think I speak for many in accepting the risk that we're
excluding doc ids formed from 4096-bit RSA signatures.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I don't think I made it clear but I think these should be
fixed limits (i.e, not configurable) in order to ensure inter-replication between couchdb
installations wherever they are.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> B.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 4 May 2020, at 10:52, Ilya Khlopotov <iilyak@apache.org>
wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hello,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thank you Robert for starting this important discussion.
I think that the values you propose make sense.
> >>>>>>>> I can see a case when user would use hashes as document
ids. All existent hash functions I am aware of should return data which fit into 512 characters.
There is only one case which doesn't fit into 512 limit. If user would decide to use RSA signatures
as document ids and they use 4096 bytes sized keys the signature size would be 684 bytes.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> However in this case users can easily replace signatures
with hashes of signatures. So I wouldn't worry about it to much. 512 sounds plenty to me.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> +1 to set hard limits on db name size and doc id size
with proposed values.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>>>> iilyak
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 2020/05/01 18:36:45, Robert Samuel Newson <rnewson@apache.org>
wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Hello,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> There are other threads related to doc size (etc)
limits for CouchDB 4.0, motivated by restrictions in FoundationDB, but we haven't discussed
database name length and doc id length limits. These are encoded into FoundationDB keys and
so we would be wise to forcibly limit their length from the start.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I propose 256 character limit for database name
and 512 character limit for doc ids.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If you can't uniquely identify your database or
document within those limits I argue that you're doing something wrong, and the limits here,
while making FDB happy, are an aid to sensible application design.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Does anyone want higher or lower limits? Comments
pls.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> B.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>
> >
>

Mime
View raw message