10:32 a.m.
Hi,
PostgreSQL 9 was released
http://www.postgresql.org/about/news.1235
Are there any chances to get this for F14? The new version supports
basic replication scenarios, so I would not have to use PgPool :)
Regards,
Michal
10:48 a.m.
2010/9/20 Michał Piotrowski <mkkp4x4(a)gmail.com>:
PostgreSQL 9 was released
http://www.postgresql.org/about/news.1235
Are there any chances to get this for F14? The new version supports
basic replication scenarios, so I would not have to use PgPool :)
Way too late for updating the main postgres packages, but a parallel
installable postgres9 package (possibly ported over to EPEL too) would
be good...
Mark
10:53 a.m.
2010/9/20 Mark Chappell <tremble(a)tremble.org.uk>:
2010/9/20 Michał Piotrowski <mkkp4x4(a)gmail.com>:
> PostgreSQL 9 was released
> http://www.postgresql.org/about/news.1235
>
> Are there any chances to get this for F14? The new version supports
> basic replication scenarios, so I would not have to use PgPool :)
Way too late for updating the main postgres packages, but a parallel
installable postgres9 package
Acceptable solution :)
(possibly ported over to EPEL too) would
be good...
It would be great :)
Mark
Regards,
Michal
2:43 p.m.
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:53:41 +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
2010/9/20 Mark Chappell <tremble(a)tremble.org.uk>:
> 2010/9/20 Michał Piotrowski <mkkp4x4(a)gmail.com>:
>> PostgreSQL 9 was released
>> http://www.postgresql.org/about/news.1235
>>
>> Are there any chances to get this for F14? The new version supports
>> basic replication scenarios, so I would not have to use PgPool :)
>
> Way too late for updating the main postgres packages, but a parallel
> installable postgres9 package
Acceptable solution :)
> (possibly ported over to EPEL too) would be good...
It would be great :)
Note: I don't think Mark was proposing to do the packaging work himself.
But it'd be great if whoever picks this up (Michał, are you a packager?)
could reply to this thread, thus avoiding duplication of work and attract
potential reviewers once the new package is ready.
--
Michel Alexandre Salim
Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/
Email: salimma(a)fedoraproject.org | GPG key ID: 78884778
Jabber: hircus(a)jabber.ccc.de | IRC: hircus(a)irc.freenode.net
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
2:53 p.m.
2010/9/20 Michel Alexandre Salim <fedora(a)michelsylvain.info>:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:53:41 +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> 2010/9/20 Mark Chappell <tremble(a)tremble.org.uk>:
>> 2010/9/20 Michał Piotrowski <mkkp4x4(a)gmail.com>:
>>> PostgreSQL 9 was released
>>> http://www.postgresql.org/about/news.1235
>>>
>>> Are there any chances to get this for F14? The new version supports
>>> basic replication scenarios, so I would not have to use PgPool :)
>>
>> Way too late for updating the main postgres packages, but a parallel
>> installable postgres9 package
>
> Acceptable solution :)
>
>> (possibly ported over to EPEL too) would be good...
>
> It would be great :)
Note: I don't think Mark was proposing to do the packaging work himself.
But it'd be great if whoever picks this up (Michał, are you a packager?)
No, I'm not packager.
could reply to this thread, thus avoiding duplication of work and
attract
potential reviewers once the new package is ready.
I'm willing to help in review/testing
Regards,
Michal
2:56 p.m.
Michel Alexandre Salim <fedora(a)michelsylvain.info> writes:
Note: I don't think Mark was proposing to do the packaging work
himself.
But it'd be great if whoever picks this up (Michał, are you a packager?)
could reply to this thread, thus avoiding duplication of work and attract
potential reviewers once the new package is ready.
I see no point whatsoever in a separate "postgresql9" package. The
regular postgresql package will be up to 9.0.x in F-15. If you feel
a need to run a bleeding edge database in F-14, it'll doubtless be
built as an RPM by upstream as soon as F-14 is stable --- see
http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux
regards, tom lane
3 p.m.
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Michel Alexandre Salim <fedora(a)michelsylvain.info> writes:
> Note: I don't think Mark was proposing to do the packaging work himself.
> But it'd be great if whoever picks this up (Michał, are you a packager?)
> could reply to this thread, thus avoiding duplication of work and attract
> potential reviewers once the new package is ready.
I see no point whatsoever in a separate "postgresql9" package. The
regular postgresql package will be up to 9.0.x in F-15. If you feel
a need to run a bleeding edge database in F-14, it'll doubtless be
built as an RPM by upstream as soon as F-14 is stable --- see
http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux
regards, tom lane
So a 6 month wait at best?
--
Fedora 13
(www.pembo13.com)
3:06 p.m.
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 16:00:46 -0400,
Arthur Pemberton <pemboa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> Michel Alexandre Salim <fedora(a)michelsylvain.info> writes:
>> Note: I don't think Mark was proposing to do the packaging work himself.
>> But it'd be great if whoever picks this up (Michał, are you a packager?)
>> could reply to this thread, thus avoiding duplication of work and attract
>> potential reviewers once the new package is ready.
>
> I see no point whatsoever in a separate "postgresql9" package. The
> regular postgresql package will be up to 9.0.x in F-15. If you feel
> a need to run a bleeding edge database in F-14, it'll doubtless be
> built as an RPM by upstream as soon as F-14 is stable --- see
> http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux
>
> regards, tom lane
So a 6 month wait at best?
For it to be in Fedora. But there will very likely be packages built for
F14 externally before then. (Plus once there is an F15 srpm, you will be
able to easily rebuild it yourself for F15.)
You need to remember that bleeding edge to a DBA means something different
than for other people.
3:13 p.m.
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
You need to remember that bleeding edge to a DBA means something
different
than for other people.
DBAs worth anything wouldn't be using *Fedora* for their distribution of
choice.
No, I'm not advocating PgSQL 9 for F14, however, it shouldn't be so
far-fetched that Fedora could have any software at any time. Expecting
people to adopt their own personal repositories for versions of software
that Fedora maintainers don't want to ship "just because" should be seen
as a bug against Fedora itself. /end-thread-tangent
4:59 p.m.
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:13:42 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
No, I'm not advocating PgSQL 9 for F14, however, it shouldn't
be so
far-fetched that Fedora could have any software at any time.
A Fedora update policy is being hashed out, and even before that, the
consensus is really against introducing major updates in stable releases.
It's not really "anything goes" as your statement seems to imply.
Expecting
people to adopt their own personal repositories for versions of software
that Fedora maintainers don't want to ship "just because" should be seen
as a bug against Fedora itself. /end-thread-tangent
Well, we're not, thankfully, in the same situation as some other distro
where each third-party repository overlap quite a lot because they
rebuild, possibly unnecessarily, an entire stack of software. The
personal repositories I've seen tend to be tightly focused -- Richard
Jones' mingw porting work, spot's repo for bleeding edge packages that
rightly are not ready for Fedora proper, etc.
--
Michel Alexandre Salim
Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/
Email: salimma(a)fedoraproject.org | GPG key ID: 78884778
Jabber: hircus(a)jabber.ccc.de | IRC: hircus(a)irc.freenode.net
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
6:26 p.m.
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim
<fedora(a)michelsylvain.info> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:13:42 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> No, I'm not advocating PgSQL 9 for F14, however, it shouldn't be so
> far-fetched that Fedora could have any software at any time.
A Fedora update policy is being hashed out, and even before that, the
consensus is really against introducing major updates in stable releases.
It's not really "anything goes" as your statement seems to imply.
A parallel update is a major update requiring a 6 month wait in Fedora now?
--
Fedora 13
(www.pembo13.com)
7:52 p.m.
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 19:26:53 -0400, you wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim
<fedora(a)michelsylvain.info> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:13:42 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>> No, I'm not advocating PgSQL 9 for F14, however, it shouldn't be so
>> far-fetched that Fedora could have any software at any time.
>
> A Fedora update policy is being hashed out, and even before that, the
> consensus is really against introducing major updates in stable releases.
> It's not really "anything goes" as your statement seems to imply.
A parallel update is a major update requiring a 6 month wait in Fedora now?
I would guess that the PostgreSQL maintainer(s) would prefer to only
maintain one version in Fedora at a time.
Really though, if people wanted PostgreSQL 9 in Fedora 14 they should
have started asking about it or working on it months ago, getting it
into Rawhide before the Fedora 14 split.
6:31 p.m.
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 09:59:51PM +0000, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:13:42 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> No, I'm not advocating PgSQL 9 for F14, however, it shouldn't be so
> far-fetched that Fedora could have any software at any time.
A Fedora update policy is being hashed out, and even before that, the
consensus is really against introducing major updates in stable releases.
It's not really "anything goes" as your statement seems to imply.
> Expecting
> people to adopt their own personal repositories for versions of software
> that Fedora maintainers don't want to ship "just because" should be
seen
> as a bug against Fedora itself. /end-thread-tangent
Well, we're not, thankfully, in the same situation as some other distro
where each third-party repository overlap quite a lot because they
rebuild, possibly unnecessarily, an entire stack of software. The
personal repositories I've seen tend to be tightly focused -- Richard
Jones' mingw porting work, spot's repo for bleeding edge packages that
rightly are not ready for Fedora proper, etc.
But we're going in that direction... For instance, spot's firefox4 repo
has to ship with its own rebuild of nss which, because of other efforts
within Fedora, a lot of packages rely on.
As the concept of using third party repositories (both as packagers and as
users) grows, this interdependence will grow.
-Toshio
2:42 a.m.
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 19:31:06 -0400, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 09:59:51PM +0000, Michel Alexandre Salim
wrote:
> Well, we're not, thankfully, in the same situation as some other distro
> where each third-party repository overlap quite a lot because they
> rebuild, possibly unnecessarily, an entire stack of software. The
> personal repositories I've seen tend to be tightly focused -- Richard
> Jones' mingw porting work, spot's repo for bleeding edge packages that
> rightly are not ready for Fedora proper, etc.
>
But we're going in that direction... For instance, spot's firefox4 repo
has to ship with its own rebuild of nss which, because of other efforts
within Fedora, a lot of packages rely on.
In this case, the other packages depend on this particular rebuild,
though? The situation with OBS is that many repositories contain their
own, slightly different, versions of the same key packages. The non-
orthogonality makes it ... interesting ... to use different third-party
repositories at the same time.
Not saying it's ideal that the NSS update cannot land in Fedora proper
fast enough, but this is partly due to the way the Mozilla developers act
as if they're the only customers of their own libraries, and not provide
stable APIs/ABIs (see also the updates triggered by xulrunner updates)
As the concept of using third party repositories (both as packagers
and
as users) grows, this interdependence will grow.
I agree. Still, it should be kept to a minimum as much as possible.
--
Michel Alexandre Salim
Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/
Email: salimma(a)fedoraproject.org | GPG key ID: 78884778
Jabber: hircus(a)jabber.ccc.de | IRC: hircus(a)irc.freenode.net
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
6:54 p.m.
Do what thou wilt
shall be the whole of the Law.
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim
<fedora(a)michelsylvain.info> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:13:42 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> No, I'm not advocating PgSQL 9 for F14, however, it shouldn't be so
> far-fetched that Fedora could have any software at any time.
A Fedora update policy is being hashed out, and even before that, the
consensus (of/among?)
is really against introducing major updates in >stable releases.
this is a major disadvantage of 'stable releases'
Michel Alexandre Salim
Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/
Email: salimma(a)fedoraproject.org | GPG key ID: 78884778
Jabber: hircus(a)jabber.ccc.de | IRC: hircus(a)irc.freenode.net
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
charles zeitler
--
Love is the law, love under will.
7:01 a.m.
Michał Piotrowski, Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:32:49 +0200:
PostgreSQL 9 was released
http://www.postgresql.org/about/news.1235
Are there any chances to get this for F14? The new version supports
basic replication scenarios, so I would not have to use PgPool :)
I think this is an ideal project for
http://repos.fedorapeople.org/
Best,
Matěj
--
http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/, Jabber: mcepl<at>ceplovi.cz
GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB 25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC
A GOOD name is rather to be chosen than great riches.
-- Proverbs 22:1
12:51 a.m.
On Mon, 2010-09-20 at 17:32 +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
PostgreSQL 9 was released
http://www.postgresql.org/about/news.1235
Are there any chances to get this for F14?
Here comes the upstream packager. :)
I have done major rewrite in 9.0 spec file, and it now supports parallel
installation like Debian/Ubuntu does:
http://svn.pgrpms.org/browser/rpm/redhat/9.0/postgresql/F-13/postgresql-9...
I'm not sure whether Tom will use this new layout or not in Fedora
packages, but I can definitely say that upstream RPM repo will
definitely support F-14 once it goes stable.
Feel free to use that repo:
http://yum.pgrpms.org
which will hopefully turn into yum.postgresql.org over the next month or
so. This repo has more PG related packages as compared to Fedora.
-HTH
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer
PostgreSQL RPM Repository: http://yum.pgrpms.org
Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
4961
days inactive
4968
days old
16 comments
12 participants
participants (12)
-
Arthur Pemberton -
Bruno Wolff III -
Charles Zeitler -
Devrim Gündüz -
Gerald Henriksen -
Mark Chappell -
Matej Cepl -
Michael Cronenworth -
Michał Piotrowski -
Michel Alexandre Salim -
Tom Lane -
Toshio Kuratomi