Request MRE approval for PostgreSQL

[Sergio Durigan Junior]

On Thursday, January 18 2024, Christopher James Halse Rogers wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 17 2024 at 21:09:58 -0500, Sergio Durigan Junior
> <sergiodj at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 17 2024, Christopher James Halse Rogers wrote:
>> 
>>>  Hi there!
>> Hey, Chris,
>> Thanks for the review.
>> 
>>>  On Sat, Jan 13 2024 at 00:08:35 -0500, Sergio Durigan Junior
>>>  <sergio.durigan at canonical.com> wrote:
>>>>  Hello,
>>>>  In the same spirit as Christian's formal request for an SRU
>>>>  exception
>>>>  for open-vm-tools, Athos and I would like to formally request the
>>>>  approval of the PostgreSQL MRE wiki page.
>>>>  We (the Server team) have been doing such MREs for a number of
>>>> years
>>>>  now, but it came to our attention recently that we don't actually
>>>> have
>>>>  the MRE policy for PostgreSQL formally defined in a wiki page, as
>>>> is
>>>>  usual for more recent packages.
>>>>  I don't know much about the history behind why such page doesn't
>>>>  exist,
>>>>  but we would like to fix it by proposing the following document:
>>>>    https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PostgreSQLUpdates
>>>  It looks like a good documentation of current practice, and
>>> current
>>>  practice looks (mostly) good.
>>>  A couple of questions:
>>>  * Checking the PostgreSQL policy, they say that a pg_dump/restore
>>>    cycle between minor updates is *normally* not needed. Has it
>>> *ever*
>>>    been needed in the past? Presumably we would not take such an
>>> update
>>>    (at least, not under this MRE)?
>> Athos and I have been doing this MRE for a bit more than a year now,
>> and
>> so far we have never seen a situation where a pg_dump/restore cycle
>> was
>> needed.  I'm Cc'ing Christian, who used to handle the MREs before
>> us, in
>> case he knows something more.
>> 
>>>  * I notice a number of the updates are of the form “Fix FROB
>>> index. If
>>>    you have any FROB indexes, you must run FROBINATE REINDEX to get
>>> the
>>>    fixes”. How do we notify users of this? It's in the changelog,
>>> which
>>>    is not nothing, and a debconf notice would be *way* too
>>>    disruptive. Is there anywhere else we should be pushing such
>>> “you
>>>    really should check this” notifications?
>> That's a good question.  My default answer for such scenarios tends
>> to
>> be "let's put it in a d/NEWS file", but I appreciate the fact that not
>> everybody will have apt-listchanges installed.  Nonetheless, maybe
>> that's a good compromise between having the entries buried in the
>> changelog vs. having a debconf notice.  WDYT?
>
> Ooooh, yes. d/NEWS would definitely be an improvement!

Cool.

Just to clarify: does this mean that this request is approved pending
the d/NEWS addition to the wiki page?

Thanks,

-- 
Sergio
GPG key ID: E92F D0B3 6B14 F1F4 D8E0  EB2F 106D A1C8 C3CB BF14