From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 4ADCE2A402 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 11:38:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing.freelists.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lMLB1U9hWzqB for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 11:38:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp5.mail.ru (smtp5.mail.ru [94.100.179.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTPS id F01AD2A3FD for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 11:38:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] box: fix Tarantool upgrade from 2.1.0 to 2.1.1 References: <1e4434445b60b5a5e0c3b289505595b0e00c8f8c.1548838034.git.kshcherbatov@tarantool.org> <4F67EA78-E237-4424-BEF6-ECE8ADCD5CBF@tarantool.org> <860C81EF-4B1E-4648-A638-C804DB32A3EF@tarantool.org> From: Kirill Shcherbatov Message-ID: <628af1ea-16b5-b805-016a-05d7a6866944@tarantool.org> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:38:05 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <860C81EF-4B1E-4648-A638-C804DB32A3EF@tarantool.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Errors-to: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Reply-To: tarantool-patches@freelists.org List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: tarantool-patches List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-post: List-Archive: To: tarantool-patches@freelists.org, Kirill Yukhin Cc: "n.pettik" >>> Tarantool could not start from the snapshot created by version >>> 2.1.0 because the new version 2.1.1 does not support the >>> index.opts.sql index opt and stops the execution. >>> Introduced a special state OPT_DEF_LEGACY macro to ignore legacy >>> options and introduced migration code in upgrade.lua. >> >> As for me, it looks satisfying, but I strongly recommend you to ask >> other members of server team for comments on this approach. >> Will there be other “legacy” options, or in the nearest future this is >> going to be the only one? Moreover, opts_parse_key already features >> “skip_unknown_options” param - could we skip “sql” option using it >> (ofc considering some workaround)? >> >> Again, since it is not directly related to the main patch-set, let’s >> consider it as independent. > > LGTM. I've rebased this separate patch on the branch kshch/migration-fixup you may cherry-pick it if it is really reasonable.