-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
postgresqlPackages.timescaledb: 2.14.2 -> 2.17.2; adopt, nixfmt; postgresqlPackages.timescaledb_toolkit: 1.18.0 -> 1.19.0 #348223
Conversation
60a02dc
to
2f0c29c
Compare
3a0d13f
to
3573d24
Compare
3573d24
to
8f6d226
Compare
8f6d226
to
3f9a40d
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could you squash the two update commits + the "only supports postgresql 14" together in one commit and keep the maintainer + nixfmt commits separate?
broken = versionOlder postgresql.version "14" || | ||
# timescaledb supports PostgreSQL 17 from 2.17.0 on: | ||
# https://github.com/timescale/timescaledb/releases/tag/2.17.0 | ||
# We can't upgrade to it, yet, because this would imply dropping support for |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You can remove the whole part about versionAtLeast ... "17"
and the 4 line comment now, I guess.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
done
lib, | ||
stdenv, | ||
fetchFromGitHub, | ||
cmake, | ||
postgresql, | ||
openssl, | ||
libkrb5, | ||
nixosTests, | ||
enableUnfree ? true, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
While you have a diff because of nixfmt anyway, could you run a sort
on those lines?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
done
a4b95c7
to
9b3bb55
Compare
@wolfgangwalther going to draft until after 24.11 branch off |
There is now also an update to I left both of them out of #356283. I did test that the new update script there, works for timescaledb and timescaledb_toolkit, too. Thus, we will be notified of new updates in the future. Shall we go ahead with this now? |
I found the following things to note:
Those might need to be mentioned in our release notes, too? |
9b3bb55
to
7f5e260
Compare
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could you squash the last commit "mention timescaledb" into the second commit "2.14.2 -> 2.17.1"?
Those changes really belong together, I think.
broken = | ||
versionOlder postgresql.version "14" | ||
|| (versionAtLeast postgresql.version "17" && version == "2.14.2"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, sorry. The last line wasn't in the diff on my last comment, but the idea is to remove the whole "it's broken with v17". It's not anymore, right?
broken = | |
versionOlder postgresql.version "14" | |
|| (versionAtLeast postgresql.version "17" && version == "2.14.2"); | |
broken = versionOlder postgresql.version "14"; |
7f5e260
to
7e13f6f
Compare
All good on darwin as well: Result of 4 packages marked as broken and skipped:
16 packages built:
|
Did you have a look at that, too? Without bumping timescaledb_toolkit we can't test |
I can have a look into EDIT: i was thinking of different attribute |
@kirillrdy you're awesome, thanks! Can I help with this somehow? I could maybe confirm it working on x86_64 with a real world use case. Not sure if I can contribute to the actual PR though. Would it be fine to update to the newest version, v2.17.2? Any idea if this will make NixOS 24.11? |
any testing is much appreciated, I only looked at whats in yes I will bump to v2.17.2 no, this will not make to NixOS 24.11 due to breaking changes, but it doesn't mean it can not be installed on nixos 24.11 |
Changes: - https://github.com/timescale/timescaledb/releases/tag/2.17.2 - https://github.com/timescale/timescaledb/releases/tag/2.17.1 - https://github.com/timescale/timescaledb/releases/tag/2.17.0 - https://github.com/timescale/timescaledb/releases/tag/2.16.1 - https://github.com/timescale/timescaledb/releases/tag/2.16.0 - https://github.com/timescale/timescaledb/releases/tag/2.15.3 - https://github.com/timescale/timescaledb/releases/tag/2.15.2 - https://github.com/timescale/timescaledb/releases/tag/2.15.1 - https://github.com/timescale/timescaledb/releases/tag/2.15.0 squash
7e13f6f
to
c273eb2
Compare
|
yes, looks like we need to bump cargo-pgrx too |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah right, forgot to check the v17 variant of the toolkit. Good thing I got distracted from merging I guess ;-)
@@ -77,4 +77,11 @@ in | |||
hash = "sha256-0m9oaqjU42RYyttkTihADDrRMjr2WoK/8sInZALeHws="; | |||
cargoHash = "sha256-9XTIcpoCnROP63ZTDgMMMmj0kPggiTazKlKQfCgXKzk="; | |||
}; | |||
|
|||
cargo-pgrx_0_12_6 = generic { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can't we bump the alpha version above?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This breaks vector-rs I'll have a look into that
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, bummer.
Nvm, you don't have to fix it up in this PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I also wonder what the removal policy for those is. cargo-pgrx_0_10_2
is now unused in nixpkgs, because timescaledb_toolkit was the last user. Should we remove it?
Furthermore.. cargo-pgrx
is very specific to PostgreSQL and our package set, I wonder whether we should take responsibility for this with the @NixOS/postgres team as well? We could either just add to the OWNERS file directly - or move cargo-pgrx
into the postgresql directory. Imho, that would be a much more specific location than tools/rust/...
.
Certainly out of scope here, just thinking about it while I build nixosTests.postgresql.timescaledb
;)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we remove it?
Go for it.
I wouldn't do it on stable, but that's not the case here.
I wonder whether we should take responsibility for this with the @NixOS/postgres team as well?
Sounds good. Do you want to file a PR for that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sounds good. Do you want to file a PR for that?
Yeah, I can do that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Result of nixpkgs-review pr 348223
run on x86_64-linux 1
4 packages marked as broken and skipped:
- postgresql13JitPackages.timescaledb
- postgresql13JitPackages.timescaledb-apache
- postgresql13Packages.timescaledb
- postgresql13Packages.timescaledb-apache
1 package blacklisted:
- nixos-install-tools
27 packages built:
- cargo-pgrx_0_12_6
- postgresql13JitPackages.timescaledb_toolkit
- postgresql13Packages.timescaledb_toolkit
- postgresql14JitPackages.timescaledb
- postgresql14JitPackages.timescaledb-apache
- postgresql14JitPackages.timescaledb_toolkit
- postgresql14Packages.timescaledb
- postgresql14Packages.timescaledb-apache
- postgresql14Packages.timescaledb_toolkit
- postgresql15JitPackages.timescaledb
- postgresql15JitPackages.timescaledb-apache
- postgresql15JitPackages.timescaledb_toolkit
- postgresql15Packages.timescaledb
- postgresql15Packages.timescaledb-apache
- postgresql15Packages.timescaledb_toolkit
- postgresql16JitPackages.timescaledb
- postgresql16JitPackages.timescaledb-apache
- postgresql16JitPackages.timescaledb_toolkit
- postgresql16Packages.timescaledb
- postgresql16Packages.timescaledb-apache
- postgresql16Packages.timescaledb_toolkit
- postgresql17JitPackages.timescaledb
- postgresql17JitPackages.timescaledb-apache
- postgresql17JitPackages.timescaledb_toolkit
- postgresql17Packages.timescaledb
- postgresql17Packages.timescaledb-apache
- postgresql17Packages.timescaledb_toolkit
nixosTests.postgresql.timescaledb
also built fine for all versions.
Hm, seems like the update for cargo-pgrx broke on darwin:
|
Changes:
Things done
nix.conf
? (See Nix manual)sandbox = relaxed
sandbox = true
nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD"
. Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage./result/bin/
)Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.