From: Mark Walters Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 17:32:04 +0000 (+0000) Subject: Re: automatic database upgrades (was: Re: [PATCH 0/7] cli: notmuch new improvements) X-Git-Url: http://git.tremily.us/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=1db3bac2caa884cd513ef064e859a5ff635b295c;p=notmuch-archives.git Re: automatic database upgrades (was: Re: [PATCH 0/7] cli: notmuch new improvements) --- diff --git a/18/43147aa5313531c5f18ec7981824bfd8226803 b/18/43147aa5313531c5f18ec7981824bfd8226803 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..4befb6585 --- /dev/null +++ b/18/43147aa5313531c5f18ec7981824bfd8226803 @@ -0,0 +1,170 @@ +Return-Path: +X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17F4A431FBD + for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 09:34:48 -0800 (PST) +X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -1.098 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, + NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=disabled +Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) + by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) + with ESMTP id 5RfQtks94255 for ; + Sat, 25 Jan 2014 09:34:40 -0800 (PST) +Received: from mail2.qmul.ac.uk (mail2.qmul.ac.uk [138.37.6.6]) + (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) + (No client certificate requested) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1B95431FBC + for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 09:34:39 -0800 (PST) +Received: from smtp.qmul.ac.uk ([138.37.6.40]) + by mail2.qmul.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71) + (envelope-from ) + id 1W777i-0003An-LB; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 17:34:32 +0000 +Received: from 93-97-24-31.zone5.bethere.co.uk ([93.97.24.31] helo=localhost) + by smtp.qmul.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.71) + (envelope-from ) + id 1W776p-00073r-9V; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 17:33:31 +0000 +From: Mark Walters +To: Jani Nikula , notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Subject: Re: automatic database upgrades (was: Re: [PATCH 0/7] cli: notmuch + new improvements) +In-Reply-To: <87lhy4f6pr.fsf@nikula.org> +References: <87ppnga21o.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> + <87lhy4f6pr.fsf@nikula.org> +User-Agent: Notmuch/0.15.2+484~gfb59956 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.4.1 + (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 17:32:04 +0000 +Message-ID: <87fvoc9dd7.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii +X-Sender-Host-Address: 93.97.24.31 +X-QM-Geographic: According to ripencc, + this message was delivered by a machine in Britain (UK) (GB). +X-QM-SPAM-Info: Sender has good ham record. :) +X-QM-Body-MD5: fad9b9e59c7a2386aac17b9357b9d26b (of first 20000 bytes) +X-SpamAssassin-Score: 0.0 +X-SpamAssassin-SpamBar: / +X-SpamAssassin-Report: The QM spam filters have analysed this message to + determine if it is + spam. We require at least 5.0 points to mark a message as spam. + This message scored 0.0 points. Summary of the scoring: + * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail + provider * (markwalters1009[at]gmail.com) + * 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list +X-QM-Scan-Virus: ClamAV says the message is clean +X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 +Precedence: list +List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." + +List-Unsubscribe: , + +List-Archive: +List-Post: +List-Help: +List-Subscribe: , + +X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 17:34:48 -0000 + + +Thanks for posting this. You are quite right about it being orthogonal +to this series so a clear +1 from me for the series. + +What about a config option? Something like +database_auto_upgrade=true/false? I wouldn't have a strong preference +which was the default (though I would choose "false" in my own +config). I guess we would need a command line --upgrade to allow people +with database_auto_upgrade=false to do force/allow the upgrade. + +Best wishes + +Mark + + + + + + + + +On Sat, 25 Jan 2014, Jani Nikula wrote: +> On Sat, 25 Jan 2014, Mark Walters wrote: +>> This series LGTM. +> +> Hi Mark, thanks for the review! +> +>> I do now recall there was some discussion on irc about the automatic +>> database upgrade: it would be good to have that documented but the +>> consensus was to do it, so +1 from me. +> +> Here's some summary, as promised. Please bear in mind that the +> discussion is pretty much irrelevant to this particular patch +> series. (We might discuss whether a warning about upgrade should be +> printed to stderr also with --quiet, but IMHO that can be a follow-up +> patch.) +> +> A database upgrade is required when the user upgrades to a new version +> of notmuch that has a modified database schema. See +> id:cover.1389304779.git.jani@nikula.org for an example of a proposed +> database change. +> +> A database upgrade is a rare event. Most of the time, it's okay to go +> back and forth with notmuch versions on the same database, but a +> database upgrade is an irreversible process after which the user must +> use the new version of notmuch. To go back requires a full rebuild of +> the database. +> +> We don't have recent experience with the database upgrades. The last +> time it happened was before notmuch 0.1 (yes, 0.1) was released, when +> the whole upgrade mechanism was introduced: +> +> commit 909f52bd8c4bdfa11cd3e75e3d0959e0293689bd +> Author: Carl Worth +> Date: Thu Jan 7 18:26:31 2010 -0800 +> +> lib: Implement versioning in the database and provide upgrade function. +> +> Some of the points in favor of requiring manual intervention (such as +> running 'notmuch new --upgrade' or a new command 'notmuch upgrade') +> before upgrading the database: +> +> * The database upgrade is an irreversible process. The user should have +> a chance to decide whether to go ahead with that. You can't go back to +> the old notmuch and database version without rebuilding the database. +> +> * The user should be given the chance to make backups first in case +> something goes wrong. +> +> * The database upgrade might take a long time for large databases. The +> user should be able to choose when to go ahead with that. +> +> Some of the points in favor of upgrading automatically: +> +> * cworth: "One potential concern is that [requiring manual intervention] +> effectively breaks notmuch until the user intervenese and runs this +> new command. So that can complicate things for any interface that sits +> on top of notmuch." +> +> * cworth: "In general, I'm often frustrated with programs that say "I +> cannot continue until you run command .". If command needs +> to be run, and the software knows it, why doesn't it just run it +> itself? [...] So a message like "Run 'notmuch upgrade'" seems it could +> corrode the user's trust in notmuch to maintain its own state." +> +> * There are people who run notmuch new non-interactively. There's no +> easy answer to handling that if manual intervention is required. +> +> * It should always be okay to kill the upgrade, and continue at a later +> time, in case it takes too long. +> +> Reading the logs again, I'm not so confident about us reaching a +> concensus. Maybe it was just me changing my mind during the course of +> the discussion... so we can try to reach concensus here. +> +> +> BR, +> Jani.