Skip to content
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

Minimal upgrade to Postgres 16 #3680

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jan 10, 2025
Merged

Conversation

bensteinberg
Copy link
Contributor

Tests pass locally.

See the PG release notes for versions 13, 14, 15, and 16.

The RDS upgrade path from 12.19, which is what we are running now, does not extend directly to 16.6, so I took the liberty of upgrading our stage instance from 12.19 to 12.22, and then to 16.6; we can kick the tires on stage. The upgrades took some minutes; we'll go into maintenance mode when it's time to upgrade the production instances.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 2, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 69.67%. Comparing base (ffa57fa) to head (9165b7e).
Report is 3 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop    #3680   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    69.67%   69.67%           
========================================
  Files           54       54           
  Lines         7661     7661           
========================================
  Hits          5338     5338           
  Misses        2323     2323           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Contributor

@rebeccacremona rebeccacremona left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM! Interesting to read the changelog and see the kinds of things that they are changing.

When merged, one of us should probably post instructions in Slack for what devs should do, when they pull down the changes, to initialize a new DB, and some remark about keeping or deleting old volumes.

@@ -141,6 +141,7 @@ services:
volumes:
node_modules:
postgres_data:
postgres_data_16:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I like the idea of updating the volume's name! Less confusing for folks pulling down the changes.

What's the thought re: keeping both postgres_data and postgres_data_16 defined here?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@bensteinberg bensteinberg Jan 6, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I had a vague notion about devs possibly wanting to keep and use the old volume, as in

some remark about keeping or deleting old volumes

but I think I'll remove it from the docker compose file.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍 Yeah. That's what I figured. I always have a few extras around, for instance, one or two prod-like dumps put together this way, so I'm used to having volumes available that aren't listed in the compose file. 🤷‍♀️. No opinion on whether that's good or bad practice.

@bensteinberg bensteinberg merged commit e562d68 into harvard-lil:develop Jan 10, 2025
2 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants