On Thursday, January 18 2024, Christopher James Halse Rogers wrote: > On Wed, Jan 17 2024 at 21:09:58 -0500, Sergio Durigan Junior > <sergi...@ubuntu.com> wrote: >> On Wednesday, January 17 2024, Christopher James Halse Rogers wrote: >> >>> Hi there! >> Hey, Chris, >> Thanks for the review. >> >>> On Sat, Jan 13 2024 at 00:08:35 -0500, Sergio Durigan Junior >>> <sergio.duri...@canonical.com> wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> In the same spirit as Christian's formal request for an SRU >>>> exception >>>> for open-vm-tools, Athos and I would like to formally request the >>>> approval of the PostgreSQL MRE wiki page. >>>> We (the Server team) have been doing such MREs for a number of >>>> years >>>> now, but it came to our attention recently that we don't actually >>>> have >>>> the MRE policy for PostgreSQL formally defined in a wiki page, as >>>> is >>>> usual for more recent packages. >>>> I don't know much about the history behind why such page doesn't >>>> exist, >>>> but we would like to fix it by proposing the following document: >>>> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PostgreSQLUpdates >>> It looks like a good documentation of current practice, and >>> current >>> practice looks (mostly) good. >>> A couple of questions: >>> * Checking the PostgreSQL policy, they say that a pg_dump/restore >>> cycle between minor updates is *normally* not needed. Has it >>> *ever* >>> been needed in the past? Presumably we would not take such an >>> update >>> (at least, not under this MRE)? >> Athos and I have been doing this MRE for a bit more than a year now, >> and >> so far we have never seen a situation where a pg_dump/restore cycle >> was >> needed. I'm Cc'ing Christian, who used to handle the MREs before >> us, in >> case he knows something more. >> >>> * I notice a number of the updates are of the form “Fix FROB >>> index. If >>> you have any FROB indexes, you must run FROBINATE REINDEX to get >>> the >>> fixes”. How do we notify users of this? It's in the changelog, >>> which >>> is not nothing, and a debconf notice would be *way* too >>> disruptive. Is there anywhere else we should be pushing such >>> “you >>> really should check this” notifications? >> That's a good question. My default answer for such scenarios tends >> to >> be "let's put it in a d/NEWS file", but I appreciate the fact that not >> everybody will have apt-listchanges installed. Nonetheless, maybe >> that's a good compromise between having the entries buried in the >> changelog vs. having a debconf notice. WDYT? > > Ooooh, yes. d/NEWS would definitely be an improvement!
Cool. Just to clarify: does this mean that this request is approved pending the d/NEWS addition to the wiki page? Thanks, -- Sergio GPG key ID: E92F D0B3 6B14 F1F4 D8E0 EB2F 106D A1C8 C3CB BF14 -- Ubuntu-release mailing list Ubuntu-release@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-release
