lhotari commented on issue #12166: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/12166#issuecomment-1085452668
We need a new BookKeeper release with support for a newer RocksDB since the version cannot be upgraded without recompiling the source code. The RocksDB upgrade was discussed in the Pulsar community meeting on March 31st ([meeting notes](https://lists.apache.org/thread/tq7dsws72zf9r7qzr4l567z9w346ksbm), thank you @michaeljmarshall ). > - Matteo: discussing RocksDB version nuances and making sure Pulsar Standalone works on Arm machines (particularly MacOS). Part of the question is whether or not we can do a major upgrade of RocksDB in a minor or patch release of Bookkeeper. Andrey asked whether or not we could upgrade RocksDB on older versions. Matteo thinks we shouldn’t upgrade RocksDB in existing stable versions of Pulsar (2.8 to 2.10). Andrey asks about users running with Arm and wanting to test out old versions, and Matteo mentioned that he would prefer not to introduce a possible regression in the production just to get it to work on MacOS. Andrey agreed. I believe that this decision is to be made in the BookKeeper project. It seems that RocksDB has already been upgraded to 6.29.x in branch-4.14 by this commit: https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/commit/0e7f8f42 . @merlimat @dlg99 @eolivelli @nicoloboschi, is this fine? It means that Pulsar 2.8.x+ would be getting this upgrade eventually if we want to get maintenance updates from BookKeeper for 4.14.x . Pulsar 2.8.x+ is on BK 4.14.4 currently. There's a conflict with what was discussed yesterday, "Matteo thinks we shouldn’t upgrade RocksDB in existing stable versions of Pulsar (2.8 to 2.10)." -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
