Hi guys, Just doing a follow-up on this topic. Aleks has started the release process for 1.6.0 which means 1.7.0 things are ready to be merged into develop. Is there a chance some of you could review the Liquibase change PR? Just for the record, here it is: https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/2030
Thanks! Best, Arnold On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 9:38 AM Arnold Galovics <galovicsarn...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Petri, > > Sure thing. > > As I wrote in the first email, one of the major motivations towards > Liquibase is the ability to seamlessly support multiple databases in terms > of schema creation and initial data inserts. This gets extremely important > if Fineract will support for example PostgreSQL in addition to the current > MySQL support. > > Unfortunately MySQL and PostgreSQL have differences in how to do those > things in certain cases and with plain SQL, it could be cumbersome to > maintain 2 types of SQL scripts, one for MySQL and one for PostgreSQL. > > With Liquibase we can forget about plain SQL for schema management and use > a generic format that applies to multiple databases. However, if there's a > need of using a plan SQL, we can do that too in Liquibase but with a more > robust solution (using different contexts to apply certain parts of the > changesets). > > Plus, there are a couple other benefits which I don't want to copy paste > here: https://www.liquibase.com/liquibase-vs-flyway > Although, I've gotta say Liquibase preconditions make database schema > migrations really easy. I've used them quite extensively on other projects > and saved a lot of time when switching back and forth between service > versions. > > Does that make sense? > > Best, > Arnold > > On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 1:21 AM Petri Tuomola <pe...@tuomola.org.invalid> > wrote: > >> Hi Arnold >> >> Looks like a smooth transition. Can you share what are the benefits we >> should expect to get from Liquibase over Flyway? >> >> Cheers >> Petri >> >> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022, 03:14 Arnold Galovics <galovicsarn...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi everybody, >>> >>> Just wanted to let you know that the PR is ready for the Flyway to >>> Liquibase change. https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/2030 >>> The change is planned to be included only in 1.7 and not targeted for >>> 1.6. >>> >>> I'd like to assure everybody that the forward upgrade is going to be >>> fully automatic from Fineract 1.6 to Fineract 1.7, there's no need for >>> manual changes. >>> >>> The automatic upgrade works in 3 different ways depending on the >>> scenario: >>> - If the database is completely empty, it's going to apply all >>> changesets from the Liquibase changelogs >>> - If the database contains the changes from the last Flyway migration >>> scripts included in Fineract 1.6. In that case, a seamless upgrade is going >>> to happen to Liquibase >>> - If the database contains Flyway changes but it's not running the >>> latest migration scripts from 1.6 - i.e. the Fineract version being ran is >>> pre-1.6. In that case the application startup will fail, notifying the >>> operator in the logs that first they shall upgrade to 1.6 and then to 1.7 >>> >>> Let me know if you have any thoughts on the changes. >>> >>> Best, >>> Arnold >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 3:33 PM VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ < >>> victor.rom...@fintecheando.mx> wrote: >>> >>>> Alberto, >>>> >>>> Can you share your thoughts? >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Victor >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> El mar, 8 feb 2022 a las 4:19, Aleksandar Vidakovic (< >>>> chee...@monkeysintown.com>) escribió: >>>> >>>>> ... YAML, XML or JSON... all good for me... in the end very easy to >>>>> transform with Jackson in a one liner if someone needs a different >>>>> format... >>>>> >>>>> So, have no preference here... let's see what the community has >>>>> to say... >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 10:56 AM Arnold Galovics < >>>>> galovicsarn...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Aleks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Good to know. >>>>>> >>>>>> Any preference for YAML versus XML format? >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Arnold >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 10:43 AM Aleksandar Vidakovic < >>>>>> chee...@monkeysintown.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Arnold, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ... personally, I am looking forward to seeing this one happen... >>>>>>> Postgres support is one of the things that I hear people requesting more >>>>>>> and more often. And having used Liquibase myself in other projects, I >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> to say that I find it a lot easier to use and much cleaner. One thing >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> I could create relatively easily based on Liquibase changeset files (in >>>>>>> this case I used YAML): I've created a little command line tool with >>>>>>> JBang >>>>>>> to generate PlantUML ERD diagrams... something that is a lot harder to >>>>>>> achieve with plain DDL scripts and Flyway. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree to include this one after 1.6... that gives us some time to >>>>>>> hash out backward compatibility (or not) and figure out how to make the >>>>>>> transition as easy as possible for everyone. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Aleks >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 10:08 AM Arnold Galovics < >>>>>>> galovicsarn...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I was scanning through some tickets and found FINERACT-984 >>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-984>: Postgres >>>>>>>> support. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm glad this has been brought up already. I thought about some >>>>>>>> potential paths forward to support Postgres in Fineract, let me >>>>>>>> explain. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> First of all, I've gotta say Postgres would be a great addition to >>>>>>>> the current Fineract project because - at least from my experience - >>>>>>>> Postgres often outperforms MySQL performance-wise. At one of my >>>>>>>> previous >>>>>>>> projects - which was a completely different product from Fineract - we >>>>>>>> used >>>>>>>> AWS cloud to deploy the application and we were planning to use AWS >>>>>>>> Aurora >>>>>>>> to boost the performance but we weren't sure whether AWS Aurora MySQL >>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>> Aurora PostgreSQL is the way to go, so we decided to measure it. Aurora >>>>>>>> Postgre was way better than Aurora MySQL in terms of performance but I >>>>>>>> can't really share numbers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> With that said, the first step in my opinion would be to try to do >>>>>>>> database-independent schema migrations for which we could use Liquibase >>>>>>>> instead of Flyway. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> With Liquibase we could write the schemas in a single format and in >>>>>>>> the future apply to either MySQL or PostgreSQL. In addition, Liquibase >>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>> supports native SQL migrations so we are not losing any functionality. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm happy to take this work up and make the necessary changes to >>>>>>>> Fineract. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Note: I'm not targeting 1.6 with this change but a later release. >>>>>>>> Note2: I've created a ticket as well to track this. FINERACT-1498 >>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1498> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let me know your thoughts. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> Arnold >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
