On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:22:22 +0200, Vincent Ladeuil
wrote:
> > Rollback is to revert the storm code again
>
> Restore the dbs.
I don't think we should do that if we have no evidence of data
corruption. We'd be repeating work for no benefit.
> > Rollback is to stop the importer, revert
> James Westby writes:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:35:44 +0200, John Arbash Meinel
wrote:
>> As I understand it, James still needs to do some work to get Storm to
>> not require as strict of an isolation level. For me personally, I'd
>> rather he was the one doing the rollout a
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:35:44 +0200, John Arbash Meinel
wrote:
> As I understand it, James still needs to do some work to get Storm to
> not require as strict of an isolation level. For me personally, I'd
> rather he was the one doing the rollout and we can help monitor it.
> But we certainly want
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
...
> We'd definitely be in favour of this. Do we need to co-ordinate
> timings with you, or can we just fire off the MP and let you
> handle it, the deploy & rollback?
>
> From our end, it would probably be best if you could do the
> rollout with t
On 21 June 2012 12:23, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> ...
>
>> We haven't had any movement on this for a few days.
>>
>> To sum up, this is my understanding of the situation. 1. We need to
>> switch our udd to postgres 2. We need to make code change
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
...
> We haven't had any movement on this for a few days.
>
> To sum up, this is my understanding of the situation. 1. We need to
> switch our udd to postgres 2. We need to make code changes to do
> so 3. We want to integrate these changes into trunk
On 19 June 2012 12:43, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> ...
>> Some routes are: - move to postgresql using the lower level APIs
>> and add storm later - work on the storm patchset to make it
>> reliable with sqlite - do both postgresql and sqlite at t
