Open Stack

Artem -

> PostgreSQL-9.2 will reach end-of-life at September 2017 according to [0].

Python 2.7 will reach end-of-life at the beginning of 2020. However,
we don't drop Python 2.7 and don't start using Python 3.5 instead.

Moreover we aren't going to have CentOS 7 forever. I believe either
new CentOS will be released or they will update PostgreSQL package. So
it's all about support one-more-package by packaging team (what I'm
trying to avoid).

> 9.2 is slightly incompatible with 9.3, according to [1]

Nice catch, thank you. However, we don't backup database as
PostgreSQL's binaries. We use SQL-based backup, and we use psql client
to restore it (not pg_upgrade). So there should be no problems.

> Shared memory usage is different between 9.2 and 9.3 and this could
> bring some troubles and would require config file reworking.

AFAIK, we use default settings (no custom configs). But that must be checked.


On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Artem Silenkov <asilenkov at mirantis.com> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I got another few points against downgrading.
>
> 1. PostgreSQL-9.2 will reach end-of-life at September 2017 according to [0].
> With high probability it means that we will have 9.2 version in centos repos
> when fuel9.0 arrives.
> It means that we will have to repackage it anyway just later a little bit.
>
> 2. 9.2 is slightly incompatible with 9.3, according to [1].
> Downgrading is not an easy task,pg_dump, pg_restore from different package
> versions can't work together.
>
> 3. Shared memory usage is different between 9.2 and 9.3 and this could bring
> some troubles and would require config file reworking.
>
>
> [0]: http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning/
> [1]: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/release-9-3.html
>
> Offtopic sorry for this ->
> If we want to reduce number of package we maintain we should start from ruby
> Eg.
> Gems we use are deprecated like 5 years ago and bring to the table a lot of
> efforts repackaging unsupported software.
>
> Regards,
>
> Artem Silenkov
> ---
> MOS-Packaging
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Julien Danjou <julien at danjou.info> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 14 2015, Igor Kalnitsky wrote:
>>
>> > The things I want to notice are:
>> >
>> > * Currently we aren't tied up to PostgreSQL 9.3.
>> > * There's a patch [2] that ties Fuel up to PostgreSQL 9.3+ by using a
>> > set of JSON operations.
>>
>> I'm curious and have just a small side question: does that mean Fuel is
>> only going to be able to run with PostgreSQL?
>>
>> I also see
>> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/openstack-ha-fuel-postgresql,
>> maybe it's related?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> --
>> Julien Danjou
>> // Free Software hacker
>> // https://julien.danjou.info
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>