Open Stack

Hi,

Since older Postgres doesn't introduce bugs and it won't harm new features,
I would vote for downgrade to 9.2

The reasons are:
1. not to support own package for Centos (as far as I know 9.3 for Ubuntu
is already there)
2. should Fuel some day be a part of upstream Centos? If yes, or there is
even small probability that
    it's going to be, we should be as much as possible compatible with
upstream repo. If we don't
    consider such possibility, it doesn't really matter, because user will
have to connect external
    repo anyway.

Since we already use Postgres specific features, we should spawn a separate
thread, if
we should or shouldn't continue doing that, and if there is a real need to
support mysql
for example.

Thanks,

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Igor Kalnitsky <ikalnitsky at mirantis.com>
wrote:

> > From what I understand, we are using 9.2 since the CentOS 7 switch. Can
> > anyone point me to a bug caused by that?
>
> AFAIK, there's no such bugs. Some folks have just *concerns*. Anyway,
> it's up to packaging team to decide whether to package or not.
>
> From Nailgun POV, I'd like to see classical RDBMS schemas as much as
> possible, and do not rely on database backend and its version.
>
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Bartłomiej Piotrowski
> <bpiotrowski at mirantis.com> wrote:
> > On 2015-12-16 10:14, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
> >> On 2015-12-16 08:23, Mike Scherbakov wrote:
> >>> We could consider downgrading in Fuel 9.0, but I'd very carefully
> >>> consider that. As Vladimir Kuklin said, there are may be other users
> who
> >>> already rely on 9.3 for some of their enhancements.
> >>
> >> That will be way too late for that, as it will make upgrade procedure
> >> more complicated. Given no clear upgrade path from 7.0 to 8.0, it sounds
> >> like perfect opportunity to use what is provided by base distribution.
> >> Are there actual users facilitating 9.3 features or is it some kind of
> >> Invisible Pink Unicorn?
> >>
> >> Bartłomiej
> >>
> >
> > I also want to remind that we are striving for possibility to let users
> > do 'yum install fuel' (or apt) to make the magic happen. There is not
> > much magic in requiring potential users to install specific PostgreSQL
> > version because someone said so. It's either supporting the lowest
> > version available (CentOS 7 – 9.2, Ubuntu 14.04 – 9.3, Debian Jessie –
> > 9.4, openSUSE Leap – 9.4) or "ohai add this repo with our manually
> > imported and rebuilt EPEL package".
> >
> > From what I understand, we are using 9.2 since the CentOS 7 switch. Can
> > anyone point me to a bug caused by that?
> >
> > BP
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________________________________
> > 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
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20151217/36237c76/attachment.html>