> Do we have use cases for deploying old schema versions from the latest Polaris release?
Yes, this happens every time a user upgrades their Polaris version. Backward compatibility is critical in that case. Yufei On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 10:33 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Alex, > > Maintaining only the latest schema for H2 makes sense to me. > > I wonder why we should not do the same for PostgreSQL too. > > End users can always deploy older schemas using corresponding (old) Polaris > releases if they need to. > > Do we have use cases for deploying old schema versions from the latest > Polaris release? > > That is not to say we should not support old schema versions in java code - > that is still relevant in upgrade cases. I wonder only about boostrapping > with older DDL. > > Cheers, > Dmitri. > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 1:02 PM Alexandre Dutra <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Sorry I forgot to mention this: I am not sure why we maintain > > versioned schemas for H2? The rare use cases where H2 makes sense in > > production (embedded db, ephemeral data, etc.) do not apply to > > Polaris. How about we consider H2 as a testing-only backend, and > > reduce the supported schemas to just the latest version? > > > > Thanks, > > Alex > > > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 6:38 PM Alexandre Dutra <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Thanks Dmitri, I was about to chime in here :-) > > > > > > Yes, I would actually support the opposite: make JDBC+H2 the default > > > for getting-started guides (thus shipping H2 by default). > > > > > > As I explained in the other thread, JDBC+H2 is a superior setup, much > > > closer to a real production one, compared to the test-grade > > > TreeMapMetaStore-based persistence that we use as the default today. > > > > > > Granted, we'd have to maintain schemas for H2. But on the bright side, > > > we don't need to care about schema migration, so I am not too worried > > > about the overhead. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Alex > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 6:03 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > To refresh this thread, I think Alex has a nice proposal [1] to > > actually > > > > use H2 instead of in-memory persistence by default in getting-started > > > > scenarios. > > > > > > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/nzoljc1ohnsq4f5o28dh4opqkqw3p09h > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 2:23 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > I guess the purpose is mostly for test/local "demo" purposes > without > > the > > > > > need of RDBMS service. > > > > > That said, with Docker, it's not very painful to have PostgreSQL > > including > > > > > for local test/demo use cases. > > > > > > > > > > I agree to remove H2. > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 7:08 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm just wondering whether people find value in maintaining H2 > > schemas. > > > > > > > > > > > > I doubt H2 has production use cases. Polaris builds include it > > only in > > > > > test > > > > > > configurations, it seems. > > > > > > > > > > > > Would it be reasonable to drop H2 to concentrate on PostgreSQL? > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
