Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [sepgsql 1/3] add name qualified creation label

From: Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [sepgsql 1/3] add name qualified creation label
Date: 2013-01-25 15:29:41
Message-ID: CADyhKSWFzEXCJq_ev266mjyKL+VXjaVTcY26QOurOTUPap7RWQ@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
2013/1/25 Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>:
> 2013/1/24 Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>:
>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> wrote:
>>> 2013/1/24 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>>>> John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> writes:
>>>>> On 1/23/2013 8:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>>>> FWIW, in Fedora-land I see: ...
>>>>
>>>>> I'd be far more interested in what is in RHEL and CentOS.    Fedora,
>>>>> with its 6 month obsolescence cycle, is of zero interest to me for
>>>>> deploying database servers.
>>>>
>>>> But of course Fedora is also the upstream that will become RHEL7
>>>> and beyond.
>>
>> Do we know which version of Fedora will become RHEL7, and thus, which
>> version of libselinux will go in RHEL7? (And do we know which version
>> of postgres will go in RHEL7, assuming release schedules hold)
>>
> I'm not certain...
>
>>>> It might be that the update timing makes a bigger difference in some
>>>> other distros, though.  To return to Heikki's original point about
>>>> Debian, what are they shipping today?
>>>>
>>> Even though I'm not good at release cycle of Debian, I tried to check
>>> the shipped version of postgresql and libselinux for stable, testing,
>>> unstable and experimental release.
>>> I'm not certain why they don't push postgresql-9.2 into experimental
>>> release yet. However, it seems to me optimistic libselinux-2.1.10 being
>>> bundled on the timeline of postgresql-9.3.
>>>
>>> If someone familiar with Debian's release cycle, I'd like to see the suggestion.
>>>
>>> * Debian (stable) ... postgresql-8.4 + libselinux-2.0.96
>>> http://packages.debian.org/en/squeeze/postgresql
>>> http://packages.debian.org/en/source/squeeze/libselinux
>>>
>>> * Debian (testing) ... postgresql-9.1 + libselinux-2.1.9
>>> http://packages.debian.org/en/wheezy/postgresql
>>> http://packages.debian.org/en/source/wheezy/libselinux
>>
>> Just as a note, wheezy is the version that will be the next debian
>> stable, and it's in freeze since quite a while back. So we can safely
>> expect it will be 2.1.9 that's included in the next debian stable.
>>
> It seems to me this means pgsql-9.1 shall be bundled with
> libselinux-2.1.9, but not pgsql-9.3, so here is no matter.
>
> When pgsql-9.3 is released, Fedora 17 will exceed end-of-life.
> Debian already releases libselinux-2.1.12 on experimental package
> even though its pgsql is 9.1. Is it too optimistic estimation?
>
I asked folks of Debian-JP how and when does package maintainer
pushes new versions. Usually, new versions shall be pushed to
unstable branch, then testing and stable. But it is now feature freeze
period thus it is prohibited to push new features to unstable.
Thus, newer libselinux (2.1.12) is now in experimental branch, but not
in unstable branch.
He also said, the newer libselinux will likely moved to unstable when
feature freeze is unlocked soon. The pgsql-v9.3 shall be released
several months later, so it also shall be pushed to unstable branch
several months later at least. It does not make problems.

Due to same reason, RHEL7 does not make a problem even if it
ships with pgsql-9.3, because the latest libselinux already support
2.1.10 feature. Thus, required libselinux version should be sufficient
when pgsql-9.3 become available on Fedora.

Thanks,
-- 
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Stephen FrostDate: 2013-01-25 15:30:40
Subject: Re: COPY FREEZE has no warning
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2013-01-25 15:29:15
Subject: Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group