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. > > > > > > > > > >
