Hey Tomasz -
I see that *packaging team* have decided to update PostgreSQL to 9.3
[1]. However, we aren't going to use PostgreSQL's JSON column for
VIPs, as it was pointed in the initial mail.
My IMO here - despite the fact PostgreSQL is cool and provides a lot
of useful feature, I'd prefer to be
Hi,
Just wondering what is fine result and decision? This change is pretty wide and
impacts many dev (and users), I think we should be listening to the feedback
before making any decision.
Regards,
> On 17 Dec 2015, at 11:01, Artem Silenkov wrote:
>
> Hello!
> We have merged 9.3 a week ag
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Evgeniy L wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Since older Postgres doesn't introduce bugs and it won't harm new features,
> I would vote for downgrade to 9.2
>
> The reasons are:
> 1. not to support own package for Centos (as far as I know 9.3 for Ubuntu
> is already there)
> 2
Hello!
We have merged 9.3 a week ago. From packaging team side downgrade is not an
option and was made by mistake.
Regards
Artem Silenkov
---
MOS-PAckaging
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 12:32 Oleg Gelbukh wrote:
> In fact, it seems that 9.2 is in the mix since the introduction of
> centos7. Thus, all te
In fact, it seems that 9.2 is in the mix since the introduction of centos7.
Thus, all tests that have been made since then are made against 9.2. So,
upgrading it to 9.3 actually is a change that has to be blocked by FF/SCF.
Just my 2c.
--
Best regards,
Oleg Gelbukh
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:13
Hi Andrew,
It doesn't look fair at all to say that we use Postgres specific feature
for no reasons
or as you said "just because we want".
For example we used Arrays which fits pretty well for our roles usage,
which improved
readability and performance.
Or try to fit into relational system somethin
Hi,
Since older Postgres doesn't introduce bugs and it won't harm new features,
I would vote for downgrade to 9.2
The reasons are:
1. not to support own package for Centos (as far as I know 9.3 for Ubuntu
is already there)
2. should Fuel some day be a part of upstream Centos? If yes, or there is
On 12/15/2015 02:53 PM, Andrew Maksimov wrote:
> +1 to Igor suggestion to downgrade Postgres to 9.2. Our users don't work
> directly with Postgres, so there is no any deprecation of Fuel features.
> Maintaining our own custom Postgres package just because we want "JSON
> column" is not a rational
On 12/15/2015 11:39 AM, Igor Kalnitsky wrote:
> Hey Mike,
>
> Thanks for your input.
>
>> actually not. if you replace your ARRAY columns with JSON entirely,
>
> It still needs to fix the code, i.e. change ARRAY-specific queries
> with JSON ones around the code. ;)
>
>> there's already a mos
> From what I understand, we are using 9.2 since the CentOS 7 switch. Can
> anyone point me to a bug caused by that?
AFAIK, there's no such bugs. Some folks have just *concerns*. Anyway,
it's up to packaging team to decide whether to package or not.
From Nailgun POV, I'd like to see classical RDB
On 2015-12-16 10:14, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
> On 2015-12-16 08:23, Mike Scherbakov wrote:
>> We could consider downgrading in Fuel 9.0, but I'd very carefully
>> consider that. As Vladimir Kuklin said, there are may be other users who
>> already rely on 9.3 for some of their enhancements.
>
On 2015-12-16 08:23, Mike Scherbakov wrote:
> We could consider downgrading in Fuel 9.0, but I'd very carefully
> consider that. As Vladimir Kuklin said, there are may be other users who
> already rely on 9.3 for some of their enhancements.
That will be way too late for that, as it will make upgra
Wow such a hot topic...
I'm also the one who voted for 9.2. But I also voted like Alexey S., "I'm
conservative..." - I am actually mostly conservative, and would question
every new cool tool/feature of library unless there is a very good proof on
using it. You can't build a product which will have
Dmitry,
Thank you for this document!
Please move it on https://etherpad.openstack.org to make it accessible
Best regards,
Alexey Shtokolov
2015-12-16 1:38 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Teselkin :
> Hello,
>
> I made an attempt to gather all valuable points 'for' and 'against'
> 9.2.x in one document [1]. Pl
Hello,
I made an attempt to gather all valuable points 'for' and 'against'
9.2.x in one document [1]. Please take a look on it, I also put some
comments there to keep everything in one place. I believe this can help
us to make deliberated decision.
Please add more pros / cons there as I don't pre
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Igor Kalnitsky
wrote:
> * 11 votes for keeping 9.2
> * 4 votes for restoring 9.3
Igor, please remove my vote from "9.2", I voted for "I'm too conservative,
I want to see classic RDBMS approach" , but not to keep accidentally
downgraded PostgreSQL
If you're asking
+1 to Vova and Sasha,
I voted for 9.2 at the beginning of the thread due to potential packaging
and infrastructure issues, but since Artem and Sasha insist on 9.3, I see
no reasons to keep 9.2.
2015-12-15 22:19 GMT+03:00 Aleksandra Fedorova :
> Igor,
>
> that's an anonymous vote for question sta
+1 to Igor suggestion to downgrade Postgres to 9.2. Our users don't work
directly with Postgres, so there is no any deprecation of Fuel features.
Maintaining our own custom Postgres package just because we want "JSON
column" is not a rational decision. Come on, fuel is not a billing system
with tho
Igor
Sorry, this vote is irrelevant as it is not about all the concerns rasied
by Artem, Aleksandra and me. It is about JSON vs non-JSON Postgres which is
not exactly the case.
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Igor Kalnitsky
wrote:
> FYI: so far (according to poll [1]) we have
>
> * 11 votes fo
Igor,
that's an anonymous vote for question stated in a wrong way. Sorry,
but it doesn't really look like a valuable input for the discussion.
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 9:47 PM, Igor Kalnitsky wrote:
> FYI: so far (according to poll [1]) we have
>
> * 11 votes for keeping 9.2
> * 4 votes for resto
Folks
Let me add my 2c here.
I am for using Postgres 9.3. Here is an additional argument to the ones
provided by Artem, Aleksandra and others.
Fuel is being sometimes highly customized by our users for their specific
needs. It has been Postgres 9.3 for a while and they might have as well
gotten
FYI: so far (according to poll [1]) we have
* 11 votes for keeping 9.2
* 4 votes for restoring 9.3
[1]
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RNcEVFsg7GdHIXlJl-6LCELhlwQ_zmTbd40Bk_jH1m4/edit?usp=sharing
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Vladimir Kuklin wrote:
> Folks
>
> Let me add my 2c here.
Hey Mike,
Thanks for your input.
> actually not. if you replace your ARRAY columns with JSON entirely,
It still needs to fix the code, i.e. change ARRAY-specific queries
with JSON ones around the code. ;)
> there's already a mostly finished PR for SQLAlchemy support in the queue.
Does it mean
Hello!
We use mysql-wsrep-5.6 which is latest for galera.
It is based on MySQL-5.6.27.
So JSON features here is not available yet.
Regards,
Artem Silenkov
---
MOS-Packaging
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Mike Bayer wrote:
>
>
> On 12/15/2015 07:20 AM, Igor Kalnitsky wrote:
> > Hey Julien,
>
On 12/15/2015 07:20 AM, Igor Kalnitsky wrote:
> Hey Julien,
>
>> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/openstack-ha-fuel-postgresql
>
> I believe this blueprint is about DB for OpenStack cloud (we use
> Galera now), while here we're talking about DB backend for Fuel
> itself. Fuel has a s
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 Cent
I'd support PostgreSQL 9.3 in 8.0.
* It is clear that PostgreSQL downgrade wasn't planned and discussed
before Feature Freeze, so this change is accidental. We didn't
investigate all possible consequences and changes required for the
switch.
* In Infra we have all our unit tests run on PostgreSQL
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 littl
Hey Julien,
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/openstack-ha-fuel-postgresql
I believe this blueprint is about DB for OpenStack cloud (we use
Galera now), while here we're talking about DB backend for Fuel
itself. Fuel has a separate node (so called Fuel Master) and we use
PostgreSQL no
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
It's important to note that given the change in the upgrade method, there
will be no actual downgrade of the package, since Fuel 8.0 Admin Node will
be installed on a clean system. So, from the upgrade standpoint I see no
obstacles to have 9.2 in Fuel 8.0. I also greet any chance to reduce the
numb
Hi,
If we can stick with upstream PostgresSQL that would be really nice.
Otherwise security updates and regular package update will be a burden of
package maintainers. Ideally we should have as less forked packages as
possible.
--
Best regards,
Sergii Golovatiuk,
Skype #golserge
IRC #holser
On M
Hi,
> Downgrading for no reason could bring us to big trouble and bad user
experience
+1 to this. Let's keep PostgreSQL 9.3.
Regards,
Alex
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Artem Silenkov
wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Vote for update.
>
> 1. We have already shipped 9.3 in fuel-7.0. Downgrading such comp
Hello!
Vote for update.
1. We have already shipped 9.3 in fuel-7.0. Downgrading such complicated
package without any reason is not good thing at all. User experience could
suffer a lot.
2. The next reason is tests. We have tested only 9.3, 9.2 was not tested at
all. I'm sure we could bring seriou
On 2015-12-14 13:12, Igor Kalnitsky wrote:
> My opinion here is that I don't like that we're going to build and
> maintain one more custom package (just take a look at this patch [4]
> if you don't believe me), but I'd like to hear more opinion here.
>
> Thanks,
> Igor
>
> [1] https://bugs.launch
Hi Fuelers,
As you might know, recently we moved to CentOS 7 and as a result we
got a small regression with PostgreSQL:
* Fuel 7 runs on CentOS 6.6 and uses manually built PostgreSQL 9.3.
* Fuel 8 runs on CentOS 7 and uses PostgreSQL 9.2 from CentOS upstream repos.
There are different opinions
36 matches
Mail list logo
