Re: Heads Up: /storage upgraded from version 1.0 to 2.0

On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 12:16:24 PM UTC-7, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: > users that reverted to an older version, staying on the release channel: > 2.19% Benjamin, two further questions, one of which I think you can answer, and one you probably can't: - As Dolske asked: what proportion

Re: Heads Up: /storage upgraded from version 1.0 to 2.0

It would be useful to know if most of those users are just downgrading the previous version (N-1 for release, N-7 for ESR), and how quickly they return to a current release (assuming they do!). This would help inform to what degree we need to support (and test!) the myriad combinations of

Re: Heads Up: /storage upgraded from version 1.0 to 2.0

I apologize for the delays in bug 1246615. It fell off my radar with a series of trips. I've set up a meeting tomorrow to at least identify who is responsible for this decision, because it's not exactly me. I analyzed some data in the bug which I'll repeat here. Here is an analysis of the

Re: Heads Up: /storage upgraded from version 1.0 to 2.0

> As an example of why "backup the db" is harder than it sounds, you would > need to backup the entire storage subsystem. Mossop suggested I chime in on this thread, but I think Ben has covered much of what I'd say! Some set of schema changes is safe or possible to downgrade: rearranging

Re: Heads Up: /storage upgraded from version 1.0 to 2.0

On 2017-03-07 8:02 PM, Ben Kelly wrote: > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Xidorn Quan wrote: > >>> This major version change is downgrade-incompatible, so IndexedDB and >>> DOM cache won't work in an older version if their profile has been >>> upgraded. >>> IndexedDB is also

Re: Heads Up: /storage upgraded from version 1.0 to 2.0

On 2017-03-07 7:09 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: While talking about this... I think it's about time we had an actual plan for data cleanup. Last week, when the cloudflare thing happened, I went through the files in my profile looking for all my password-manager-managed passwords and the domains

Re: Heads Up: /storage upgraded from version 1.0 to 2.0

On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 08:02:47PM -0500, Ben Kelly wrote: As an example of why "backup the db" is harder than it sounds, you would need to backup the entire storage subsystem. If you lose data in IDB, but don't lose data in other sub-systems like cache API, then an origin can find itself in a

Re: Heads Up: /storage upgraded from version 1.0 to 2.0

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Xidorn Quan wrote: > > This major version change is downgrade-incompatible, so IndexedDB and > > DOM cache won't work in an older version if their profile has been > > upgraded. > > IndexedDB is also used internally, so stuff that depends on it

Re: Heads Up: /storage upgraded from version 1.0 to 2.0

On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 10:09:52AM +1100, Xidorn Quan wrote: > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017, at 09:59 AM, Jan Varga wrote: > > On 07/03/17 23:43, Robert Strong wrote: > > > Are there any problems experienced by clients that downgrade to an > > > older version after their profile has been upgraded? > > > >

Re: Heads Up: /storage upgraded from version 1.0 to 2.0

On 07/03/17 23:43, Robert Strong wrote: Are there any problems experienced by clients that downgrade to an older version after their profile has been upgraded? This major version change is downgrade-incompatible, so IndexedDB and DOM cache won't work in an older version if their profile has

Re: Heads Up: /storage upgraded from version 1.0 to 2.0

Are there any problems experienced by clients that downgrade to an older version after their profile has been upgraded? Thanks, Robert On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Jan Varga wrote: > Since the integration of bug 1339081 [1] ​in Nightly, the storage has > been upgraded