You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@couchdb.apache.org by Miki Tebeka <mi...@saucelabs.com> on 2010/05/27 08:03:11 UTC
Valid database names in 0.11
Hello,
When did "111" stopped being a legal database name?
All the best,
--
Miki <mi...@saucelabs.com>
Re: Valid database names in 0.11
Posted by Andrew Melo <an...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 7:20 PM, J Chris Anderson <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 13, 2010, at 12:05 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> >
> > On 13 Jun 2010, at 19:59, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 19:57, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>> This is not a bug, the regex to validate a db name is
> >>>
> >>> "^[a-z][a-z0-9\_\$()\+\-\/]*$" and has been for a while.
> >>>
> >>> The wiki states "The name has to start with characters."
> >>
> >> Except that that's false, since "_users" is now also a valid db name.
> >
> > Exceptions and rules :)
>
> yes, there are some hardcoded ok db names to start with _
>
> currently
>
> _user
> _replicator (in a patch, not in trunk yet. soon I hope)
>
But it's understood that _ databases are 'special', and that namespace isn't
available for users either, so they shouldn't be concerned about the
exception.
best,
Andrew
>
> >
> > Cheers
> > Jan
> > --
> >
>
>
--
--
Andrew Melo
Re: Valid database names in 0.11
Posted by J Chris Anderson <jc...@gmail.com>.
On Jun 13, 2010, at 12:05 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> On 13 Jun 2010, at 19:59, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 19:57, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> This is not a bug, the regex to validate a db name is
>>>
>>> "^[a-z][a-z0-9\_\$()\+\-\/]*$" and has been for a while.
>>>
>>> The wiki states "The name has to start with characters."
>>
>> Except that that's false, since "_users" is now also a valid db name.
>
> Exceptions and rules :)
yes, there are some hardcoded ok db names to start with _
currently
_user
_replicator (in a patch, not in trunk yet. soon I hope)
>
> Cheers
> Jan
> --
>
Re: Valid database names in 0.11
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
On 13 Jun 2010, at 19:59, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 19:57, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>> This is not a bug, the regex to validate a db name is
>>
>> "^[a-z][a-z0-9\_\$()\+\-\/]*$" and has been for a while.
>>
>> The wiki states "The name has to start with characters."
>
> Except that that's false, since "_users" is now also a valid db name.
Exceptions and rules :)
Cheers
Jan
--
Re: Valid database names in 0.11
Posted by Dirkjan Ochtman <di...@ochtman.nl>.
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 19:57, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> This is not a bug, the regex to validate a db name is
>
> "^[a-z][a-z0-9\_\$()\+\-\/]*$" and has been for a while.
>
> The wiki states "The name has to start with characters."
Except that that's false, since "_users" is now also a valid db name.
Cheers,
Dirkjan
Re: Valid database names in 0.11
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
This is not a bug, the regex to validate a db name is
"^[a-z][a-z0-9\_\$()\+\-\/]*$" and has been for a while.
The wiki states "The name has to start with characters."
Cheers
Jan
--
On 27 May 2010, at 09:05, Sebastian Cohnen wrote:
> I think this is a bug. Or are there filesystems out there, not allowing numbers as first characters for filenames?
>
> Please open a JIRA ticket on that.
>
> On 27.05.2010, at 08:03, Miki Tebeka wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> When did "111" stopped being a legal database name?
>>
>> All the best,
>> --
>> Miki <mi...@saucelabs.com>
>
Re: Valid database names in 0.11
Posted by Sebastian Cohnen <se...@googlemail.com>.
I think this is a bug. Or are there filesystems out there, not allowing numbers as first characters for filenames?
Please open a JIRA ticket on that.
On 27.05.2010, at 08:03, Miki Tebeka wrote:
> Hello,
>
> When did "111" stopped being a legal database name?
>
> All the best,
> --
> Miki <mi...@saucelabs.com>