+1 Thanks, Hang
Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> 于2022年4月5日周二 16:35写道： > > Nicolò, > sorry for the late reply. > I thought I had answered. > > Il giorno ven 1 apr 2022 alle ore 15:15 Nicolò Boschi > <boschi1...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > > Hi all, > > > > this is a follow-up discussion about the RocksDB upgrade that happened at > > yesterday's Apache Pulsar community meeting ( > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/tq7dsws72zf9r7qzr4l567z9w346ksbm). > > > > We're going to release BookKeeper 4.14.5 in the next few days and there is > > a decision to make about breaking runtime compatibility on the Bookies side > > (BK clients should not be affected). > > > > RocksDB 6.17.3 breaks runtime compatibility with older versions and it > > requires the code to be recompiled. > > Lari did a great investigation and you can find more details in this Apache > > Pulsar pull https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14962 > > > > The main reason to upgrade RocksDB is the Apple M1 compatibility. > > > > I see two options: > > 1) Do not upgrade RocksDB in BookKeeper 4.14.5 and give the user which uses > > RocksDB an easy path to upgrade from BK 4.14.4 to 4.14.5 > > +1 for reverting the upgrade in 4.14 branch > > > 2) Upgrade RocksDB and requires to all the BK users to pay attention to the > > RocksDB version they have in the classpath. The risk is to have runtime > > errors which will require them to rebuild the application and redeploy > > their services. > > > > Given that we are also releasing 4.15.0 (with the RocksDB upgrade), I think > > it would be much safer to go with option 1. > > > > At the moment the RocksDB upgrade is already cherry-picked in 4.14, so we > > eventually have to revert it. > > +1 > > Enrico > > > > > BR, > > Nicolò Boschi
