Re: [arch-general] postgresql 9.3 -> 9.4
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Patrick Burroughs wrote: > > I agree, and a message from pacman as I've multiply stated should be in > place seems perfectly sufficient notification to me — you DO read all > your messages from pacman, don't you? Please keep your passive aggressive personal attacks to yourself. I do not run PGSQL on Arch, I do not run Arch as a server and yes, I do read my pacman output. What *I* was doing was offering a fact-based contrary opinion based on lengthy experience and working in an Enterprise arena that deals with this subject matter directly on a large scale with several distributions. -te
Re: [arch-general] postgresql 9.3 -> 9.4
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 18:08:47 -0600 Troy Engel wrote: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Patrick Burroughs > wrote: > > > > They ARE routine, though. When dealing with databases anything more > > Respectfully, they are not routine for what's being discussed. Perhaps we're running into semantic differences. In terms of running database software, upgrades of any sort are not routine. In terms of package management of database software, this is the umpteenth repetition of a minor version upgrade and incredibly routine. > Having a PGSQL package release that goes from 9.3 to 9.4 seems crazy > without letting folks know ahead of time, even if it's a simple > mailing list post. (the same is generally true for MySQL 5.1 -> 5.5 -> > 5.6, extending to MariaDB) These database vendors do not consider a > point release as routine or minor, it's a big deal that requires the > admin to possibly perform a bunch of work - update a config file to > work out deprecated settings, run something like mysql_upgrade or > pg_upgrade to get schema changes and all that stuff. Backups are > always good. :) I agree, and a message from pacman as I've multiply stated should be in place seems perfectly sufficient notification to me — you DO read all your messages from pacman, don't you? Regards, ~Celti pgpirDOAeMXJm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] postgresql 9.3 -> 9.4
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Patrick Burroughs wrote: > > They ARE routine, though. When dealing with databases anything more Respectfully, they are not routine for what's being discussed. The vendor themselves packages the binaries for each release into separate packaged versions, with each version being a different tree, for all the RPM and DEB distributions to prevent any sort of accidental upgrade from, say, 9.2 to 9.3 because they know it will probably break. It's near impossible to go from 9.2 -> 9.3 -> 9.4 for instance without manual work; for a given 9.x -> 9.y upgrade it might be required to run pg_upgrade as an example task. Having a PGSQL package release that goes from 9.3 to 9.4 seems crazy without letting folks know ahead of time, even if it's a simple mailing list post. (the same is generally true for MySQL 5.1 -> 5.5 -> 5.6, extending to MariaDB) These database vendors do not consider a point release as routine or minor, it's a big deal that requires the admin to possibly perform a bunch of work - update a config file to work out deprecated settings, run something like mysql_upgrade or pg_upgrade to get schema changes and all that stuff. Backups are always good. :) I do agree that PGSQL should have been listed in IgnorePkg as a matter of good systems admin practice, which would have prevented this problem. IMHO you should never let your DB "just upgrade" without meaning for it to happen explicitly - typically you'll need a restart of the service at a minimum, so planning downtime is key for your end users. Every once in awhile a very minor release comes down the pipe that actually breaks something important and you should be ready to roll back on the spot. $0.02, -te
Re: [arch-general] postgresql 9.3 -> 9.4
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 12:25:48 -0800 Andrej Podzimek wrote: > Well, version changes that require a non-trivial manual intervention > are certainly not "routine". There have been many bugfix version > updates of PostgreSQL that required no action at all. Those would > definitely qualify as "routine". PostgreSQL minor version changes, on > the other hand, may be tricky (often requiring a dump and restore) > and should be, IMHO, always loudly announced. They ARE routine, though. When dealing with databases anything more than a bugfix upgrade is suspect and you should be aware of such. Further, if an upgrade announcement wasn't necessary any time in the past (the only remotely related announcement was regarding a patched security vulnerability in Postgres in 2008), I don't see why one is necessary now. A post-install message is the right place for this. Regards, ~Celti pgp0zsXNed7Vz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] postgresql 9.3 -> 9.4
Next time reading pacman -Syu output before hitting Y would be even nicer. ;-) You know what, sometimes their is just so much on the screen to catch all the messages for things like this. I was hit with the same problem and had a server down for almost a day. This should have been posted on the home page with a warning and a link to the Wiki or instructions on how to perform upgrade. I think there should have been a post-install message — something that catches the eye as opposed to a simple version increment. However, an announcement on the homepage for a completely routine version change, that has happened regularly in the past, is overkill. Well, version changes that require a non-trivial manual intervention are certainly not "routine". There have been many bugfix version updates of PostgreSQL that required no action at all. Those would definitely qualify as "routine". PostgreSQL minor version changes, on the other hand, may be tricky (often requiring a dump and restore) and should be, IMHO, always loudly announced. Cheers, Andrej
Re: [arch-general] postgresql 9.3 -> 9.4
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 12:54:17 -0700 Squall Lionheart wrote: > > Next time reading pacman -Syu output before hitting Y would be even > > nicer. ;-) > > You know what, sometimes their is just so much on the screen to catch > all the messages for things like this. I was hit with the same > problem and had a server down for almost a day. This should have > been posted on the home page with a warning and a link to the Wiki or > instructions on how to perform upgrade. I think there should have been a post-install message — something that catches the eye as opposed to a simple version increment. However, an announcement on the homepage for a completely routine version change, that has happened regularly in the past, is overkill. Regards ~Celti pgpAxMlCNvZx3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] postgresql 9.3 -> 9.4
> > Next time reading pacman -Syu output before hitting Y would be even nicer. > ;-) You know what, sometimes their is just so much on the screen to catch all the messages for things like this. I was hit with the same problem and had a server down for almost a day. This should have been posted on the home page with a warning and a link to the Wiki or instructions on how to perform upgrade. Thank you Squall
Re: [arch-general] postgresql 9.3 -> 9.4
> Next time a heads up would be nice, so I know I have to dump and restore > beforehand. Next time reading pacman -Syu output before hitting Y would be even nicer. ;-) I use IgnorePkg for postgresql and postgresql-libs on my servers. -- -Nowaker www.virtkick.io
[arch-general] postgresql 9.3 -> 9.4
Hi, There was nothing mentioning a minor realease upgrade or did I miss something? Next time a heads up would be nice, so I know I have to dump and restore beforehand. Thanks! Georg -- PGP-Key: 0x1E320E65 D150 7783 A0D1 7507 1266 C5B3 BBF1 9C42 1E32 0E65 I don't like the idea of secret agencies to analyse and archive personal communication. GnuPG is available as open source, free as as in freedom, as a countermeasure. I use http://www.enigmail.net/ for Mozilla Thunderbird. If you can, please use a frontend of your choice to send me encrypted e-mail. See http://www.gnupg.org/ for an overview.
