On 2021-10-25 19:37, Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
We have two users who have experienced a potentially corrupted
database (out of hundreds of thousands or even potentially millions of
users, depending how one wants to extrapolate the popcon data). A bug
report has been filed and it is kept open in case somebody could
provide a way to reproduce the bug or report something actionable.
Otherwise neither the Debian packagers nor upstream developers (and
upstream does not even know about this bug, since it is still vague
and no bug report has been filed upstream) will do anything about the
bug report.
I am now downgrading this bug report severity to "normal" so that it
will not raise false alarms for random users.
Okay, thanks for clarifying. I initially thought the upgrade *caused*
the
data corruption. But rather, it *exposes* a potentially existing
database
corruption, which means most people should not be affected.
This misunderstanding, coupled with the "grave" severity, simply raised
alarms and caution before proceeding on my side.
You should have a backup anyway, that is just good practice while
maintaining database systems.
As previously stated, I do have backups of course, this is not in
question.
But a scheduled maintenance for a simple apt upgrade is not the same
level
of preparation and expected downtime compared to a scheduled maintenance
dedicated to test backups restoration. Thus the reluctance to go the
disaster
recovery route versus waiting for a fix* for a simple apt upgrade.
(* yes, now it's clear there is no fix to expect, but that wasn't the
initial understanding)
Again, thanks for the clarification. I'll upgrade with caution in the
next
regular maintenance window and hope I'm not affected.
