Hi Alexandre, On 25/04/16 12:23, Alexandre Viau wrote: > Hello, > > On 24/04/16 08:03 PM, Matijs van Zuijlen wrote: >> The influxdb server won't start anymore and logs the following >> complaint: >> >> run: create server: detected /var/lib/influxdb/meta/raft.db. To proceed, >> you'll need to either 1) downgrade to v0.11.x, export your metadata, >> upgrade to the current version again, and then import the metadata or 2) >> delete the file, which will effectively reset your database. For more >> assistance with the upgrade, see: >> https://docs.influxdata.com/influxdb/v0.12/administration/upgrading/ > > The old metadata format is no longer compatible and InfluxDB 0.12 does > not provide a script to make the transition. > > The only way to make a transition is to follow the instructions on the > website and requires an older version of InfluxDB. > > How do you expect me to handle this?
I agree this is a tough one to handle fully. At the very least, I think there should be an entry in the NEWS file to give people the earliest possible warning. I was thinking of how postgres handles this: It allows installing multiple versions side-by-side and provides upgrade instructions. I'm not in a position to say whether such a solution is possible for influxdb. Perhaps another option would be (or would have been) to create a package with a new name for the 0.12 version and have it conflict with the old package. This probably doesn't make sense since influxdb itself is already at 0.12. What could in fact still be an option is to create a influxdb0.10 (or prefereably influxdb0.11) package so the old version is still present in Debian. The NEWS entry could then point users to the 'old' package. This will allow users to easily install the old version, perform the first part of the upgrade procedure, and then go back to the most recent version. Would any of these options work for you? > Unless there is a reasonable way to fix this, I'll just mark this as > wontfix and users will have to create a new database. Creating a new database would be fine for me, but I can imagine not all users would agree. > > Cheers, > Kind regards, -- Matijs
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
