Artem - > PostgreSQL-9.2 will reach end-of-life at September 2017 according to [0].
Python 2.7 will reach end-of-life at the beginning of 2020. However, we don't drop Python 2.7 and don't start using Python 3.5 instead. Moreover we aren't going to have CentOS 7 forever. I believe either new CentOS will be released or they will update PostgreSQL package. So it's all about support one-more-package by packaging team (what I'm trying to avoid). > 9.2 is slightly incompatible with 9.3, according to [1] Nice catch, thank you. However, we don't backup database as PostgreSQL's binaries. We use SQL-based backup, and we use psql client to restore it (not pg_upgrade). So there should be no problems. > Shared memory usage is different between 9.2 and 9.3 and this could > bring some troubles and would require config file reworking. AFAIK, we use default settings (no custom configs). But that must be checked. On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Artem Silenkov <asilen...@mirantis.com> wrote: > Hello! > > I got another few points against downgrading. > > 1. PostgreSQL-9.2 will reach end-of-life at September 2017 according to [0]. > With high probability it means that we will have 9.2 version in centos repos > when fuel9.0 arrives. > It means that we will have to repackage it anyway just later a little bit. > > 2. 9.2 is slightly incompatible with 9.3, according to [1]. > Downgrading is not an easy task,pg_dump, pg_restore from different package > versions can't work together. > > 3. Shared memory usage is different between 9.2 and 9.3 and this could bring > some troubles and would require config file reworking. > > > [0]: http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning/ > [1]: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/release-9-3.html > > Offtopic sorry for this -> > If we want to reduce number of package we maintain we should start from ruby > Eg. > Gems we use are deprecated like 5 years ago and bring to the table a lot of > efforts repackaging unsupported software. > > Regards, > > Artem Silenkov > --- > MOS-Packaging > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Julien Danjou <jul...@danjou.info> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Dec 14 2015, Igor Kalnitsky wrote: >> >> > The things I want to notice are: >> > >> > * Currently we aren't tied up to PostgreSQL 9.3. >> > * There's a patch [2] that ties Fuel up to PostgreSQL 9.3+ by using a >> > set of JSON operations. >> >> I'm curious and have just a small side question: does that mean Fuel is >> only going to be able to run with PostgreSQL? >> >> I also see >> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/openstack-ha-fuel-postgresql, >> maybe it's related? >> >> Thanks! >> >> -- >> Julien Danjou >> // Free Software hacker >> // https://julien.danjou.info >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
