-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 73
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
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
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. |
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.
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: |
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 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?
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 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.
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.
👍 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.
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.