Hi, On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Evgeniy L <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > Since older Postgres doesn't introduce bugs and it won't harm new features, > I would vote for downgrade to 9.2 > > The reasons are: > 1. not to support own package for Centos (as far as I know 9.3 for Ubuntu > is already there) > 2. should Fuel some day be a part of upstream Centos? If yes, or there is > even small probability that > it's going to be, we should be as much as possible compatible with > upstream repo. If we don't > consider such possibility, it doesn't really matter, because user will > have to connect external > repo anyway. > +100 > Since we already use Postgres specific features, we should spawn a > separate thread, if > we should or shouldn't continue doing that, and if there is a real need to > support mysql > for example. > > Thanks, > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Igor Kalnitsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > From what I understand, we are using 9.2 since the CentOS 7 switch. Can >> > anyone point me to a bug caused by that? >> >> AFAIK, there's no such bugs. Some folks have just *concerns*. Anyway, >> it's up to packaging team to decide whether to package or not. >> >> From Nailgun POV, I'd like to see classical RDBMS schemas as much as >> possible, and do not rely on database backend and its version. >> >> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Bartłomiej Piotrowski >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On 2015-12-16 10:14, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote: >> >> On 2015-12-16 08:23, Mike Scherbakov wrote: >> >>> We could consider downgrading in Fuel 9.0, but I'd very carefully >> >>> consider that. As Vladimir Kuklin said, there are may be other users >> who >> >>> already rely on 9.3 for some of their enhancements. >> >> >> >> That will be way too late for that, as it will make upgrade procedure >> >> more complicated. Given no clear upgrade path from 7.0 to 8.0, it >> sounds >> >> like perfect opportunity to use what is provided by base distribution. >> >> Are there actual users facilitating 9.3 features or is it some kind of >> >> Invisible Pink Unicorn? >> >> >> >> Bartłomiej >> >> >> > >> > I also want to remind that we are striving for possibility to let users >> > do 'yum install fuel' (or apt) to make the magic happen. There is not >> > much magic in requiring potential users to install specific PostgreSQL >> > version because someone said so. It's either supporting the lowest >> > version available (CentOS 7 – 9.2, Ubuntu 14.04 – 9.3, Debian Jessie – >> > 9.4, openSUSE Leap – 9.4) or "ohai add this repo with our manually >> > imported and rebuilt EPEL package". >> > >> > From what I understand, we are using 9.2 since the CentOS 7 switch. Can >> > anyone point me to a bug caused by that? >> > >> > BP >> > >> > >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> > Unsubscribe: >> [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe >> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: >> [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
