Re: [Bug 11351] New: [IndexedDB] Should we have a maximum key size (or something like that)?

On 2/6/2011 12:42 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> My current thinking is that we should have some relatively large
> limit....maybe on the order of 64k?  It seems like it'd be very difficult to
> hit such a limit with any sort of legitimate use case, and the chances of
> some subtle data-dependent error would be much less.  But a 1GB key is just
> not going to work well in any implementation (if it doesn't simply oom the
> process!).  So despite what I said earlier, I guess I think we should have
> some limit...but keep it an order of magnitude or two larger than what we
> expect any legitimate usage to hit just to keep the system as flexible as
> possible.
> Does that sound reasonable to people?
Are we thinking about making this a MUST requirement, or a SHOULD?  I'm 
hesitant to spec an exact size as a MUST given how technology has a way 
of changing in unexpected ways that makes old constraints obsolete.  But 
then, I may just be overly concerned about this too.



Received on Sunday, 6 February 2011 22:04:07 UTC