On Thu, Jan 25 2024 at 14:59:27 -0500, Sergio Durigan Junior
<sergi...@ubuntu.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, January 23 2024, Christopher James Halse Rogers wrote:
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.
OK, that is a good question.
I thought about it yesterday, and my answer here pretty much aligns
with
what you expected. But let me give a little bit of context first.
It's important to say that, to the best of my knowledge, there has
*not*
been any PostgreSQL minor release that required a pg_dump/pg_restore
cycle ever since we started doing these MREs. And that, I believe, is
for a good reason: upstream must know that they would be shooting
themselves in the foot in case they required such drastic measure from
their users. And I must say that upstream seems pretty reasonable to
me, given my interactions with them for the past 3 years (give or
take).
So, IMHO, the chances of us seeing such a requirement in a minor
release
are very, very low.
On top of that, let me assure you that Athos and I (and the whole
Server
team, if I'm being honest) would straight out refuse to proceed with
the
MRE if we saw a breaking change/operation like this being required.
There is just no way to guarantee the data integrity of our users'
databases in such case, so having this being part of a LTS release is
a
no-no from our standpoint.
Therefore, in a nutshell: if PostgreSQL upstream ever requires a
pg_dump/pg_restore cycle to be performed as part of a minor release
update, then that update will not fall under this MRE.
Once that has a satisfactory answer, yes, it looks good to approve
to
me.
Hopefully my answer is enough, but please let me know if you'd like
more
details.
BTW, I will take the liberty of updating the wiki page to reflect the
answer above, and also to include the d/NEWS requirement as previously
discussed.
That looks good to me now; approved. I'll update the
StableReleaseUpdates page.
Thanks!
Chris
--
Ubuntu-release mailing list
Ubuntu-release@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-release
