Open Stack

Hi,

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Evgeniy L <eli at mirantis.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

+100


> 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
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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/aa0d0ac4/attachment.html>