public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

PostgreSQL Minor Release Retention Policy
2+ messages / 2 participants
[nested] [flat]

* PostgreSQL Minor Release Retention Policy
@ 2016-10-06 20:04  Jason Petersen <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread

From: Jason Petersen @ 2016-10-06 20:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: pgsql-pkg-yum

In a blog post, Devrim wrote: "This means, when there is new release available, we will delete n-3th one. This is a policy to keep the repo clean. This does not apply for PostgreSQL major releases”

I take it this actually means release and not version, right? For instance, last I checked we had 9.5.3-2, 9.5.4-1, and 9.5.4-2 in there. So if I know I’m on 9.5.4, I’m not automatically safe until 9.5.7… my package may disappear as soon as 9.5.5 if there is enough RPM release churn?

This makes it pretty unsafe to hardcode a full version specifier in e.g. a Dockerfile or other system meant to produce repeatable results, but I suppose people can just run their own package mirrors if they desire a different retention policy.

Just wanting some clarity on my interpretation, though. Thanks!

--
Jason Petersen
Software Engineer | Citus Data
303.736.9255
[email protected]



Attachments:

  [application/pgp-signature] signature.asc (496B, 3-signature.asc)
  download

^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2+ messages in thread

* Re: PostgreSQL Minor Release Retention Policy
@ 2016-10-06 21:31  Devrim Gündüz <[email protected]>
  parent: Jason Petersen <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread

From: Devrim Gündüz @ 2016-10-06 21:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jason Petersen <[email protected]>; pgsql-pkg-yum


Hi Jason,

On Thu, 2016-10-06 at 14:04 -0600, Jason Petersen wrote:
> In a blog post, Devrim wrote: "This means, when there is new release
> available, we will delete n-3th one. This is a policy to keep the repo clean.
> This does not apply for PostgreSQL major releases”
> 
> I take it this actually means release and not version, right? For instance,
> last I checked we had 9.5.3-2, 9.5.4-1, and 9.5.4-2 in there. So if I know
> I’m on 9.5.4, I’m not automatically safe until 9.5.7… my package may
> disappear as soon as 9.5.5 if there is enough RPM release churn?

repomanage script, ( part of yum-utils and dnf) that we use for cleaning up old
packages, has this option:

  -k KEEP, --keep=KEEP  newest N packages to keep - defaults to 1

So, I set -k 3 in our sync scripts.

What does it mean? Under normal circumstances, if we don't make any packaging
mistakes, when we release 9.5.5, then 9.5.2 will be removed, so we'll keep the
latest 3 versions.

However, there is a minor potential problem in here: If we release 9.5.5-2,
then 9.5.3 will be removed, so practically we'll have only 2 versions (?).

> This makes it pretty unsafe to hardcode a full version specifier in e.g. a
> Dockerfile or other system meant to produce repeatable results, but I suppose
> people can just run their own package mirrors if they desire a different
> retention policy.

Right. 

Why do you hardcode postgresql RPMs in Dockerfile, btw? 

Regards,
-- 
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer
Twitter: @DevrimGunduz , @DevrimGunduzTR


Attachments:

  [application/pgp-signature] signature.asc (819B, 2-signature.asc)
  download

^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2016-10-06 21:31 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-10-06 20:04 PostgreSQL Minor Release Retention Policy Jason Petersen <[email protected]>
2016-10-06 21:31 ` Devrim Gündüz <[email protected]>

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox