On Thu, Jan 18 2024 at 11:21:18 -0500, Sergio Durigan Junior
<sergi...@ubuntu.com> wrote:
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?
I'd like an answer to the other question before approving - what
happens if a pg_dump/pg_restore cycle *is* required across a minor
update. Presumably the answer is “that update will not fall under
this MRE”, but we should document both that decision and how we
expect to pick up when this would apply.
Once that has a satisfactory answer, yes, it looks good to approve to
me.
Cheers,
Chris
--
Ubuntu-release mailing list
Ubuntu-release@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-release
