On 2020/02/06 10:15, Daniel Jakots wrote: > Hi Theo, > > Thanks for working on that! > > On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 15:21:23 +0100, Theo Buehler <t...@theobuehler.org> > wrote: > > > First of all, despite the length of this mail, most of the update is > > straightforward. The diff is an in-place upgrade from 4.0.14 to 5.0.7.
When the topic came up before, there was some mention of 5.x not working on some arches, I would like to see this tested on at least i386, sparc64, aarch64 before it goes in. I can do some tests on i386 and probably also aarch64 but not sparc64. > > The release notes (which contain migration instructions at the very > > end) > > > > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/antirez/redis/5.0/00-RELEASENOTES > > Since Redis 5.0 is still able to read 4.0 mdb format, I assume for a > user there is nothing to do. I guess you don't plan to add anything to > current.html do you? > > > look as if there is no risk of losing data due to the migration and > > looking around on the net I couldn't find any reports of breakage. > > However, I don't know and can't know for sure. > > > > Since we're playing with user data here, it might be more prudent to > > provide a redis5 port, and to leave it to the users to decide if and > > when they want to migrate instead of forcing it upon them right when > > the update goes in (or when they upgrade to 6.7). > > AFAIK, redis is (or should be) used as a cache i.e. losing its data is > a small inconvenience but shouldn't be a problem. noooooo, this would be a big problem.... > I don't think > duplicating the port is worth it. I do agree with that. > > A detail: redis-sentinel is installed as a symlink to redis-server. > > Ports seem to do this frequently, but I wonder if that should be > > turned into a hard link as is usually done in base? > > What are the pro/cons of using a hard link instead? Not sure about pros, but here's a con: you need to check inode numbers to see for sure where they point (I hate this with the hardlinked files in base...)
