Syncthing: Consider changing db dir name and archiving on schema upgrade
Our db folder is called index-v0.14.0.db. The v0.14.0 in itself might be slightly confusing, and since doing backwards incompatible database schema changes, it's definitely not entirely accurate anymore. I think it would make sense on a schema upgrade to copy the index to a new dir, e.g. index-v1.6.db currently (or v1.6.0 for completeness, but there shouldn't be any db changes in patch releases, so the 0 is redundant). And maybe have some retention policy, like keep only one db copy on top of the currently active one.
imsodin
All 2 comments
When we used the version-in-name thing last we didn't have schema versioning in the database. Now we do... There might still be value in archiving a copy to permit downgrades, though. But changing the name every version might be more confusing than it's worth I think, plus an inadvertent downgrade will just starting running with a new, blank database as the expected name no longer exists.
If anything we should maybe just switch to index.leveldb (and then maybe index.badger, or perhaps skip the intermediate step...).
calmh
on 19 May 2020
I say no. Fight me.
calmh
on 31 Aug 2020
Related issues
STaRDoGG
路
3Comments
vipseixas
路
4Comments
calmh
路
3Comments
da2x
路
3Comments
tomasz1986
路
3Comments
Most helpful comment
When we used the version-in-name thing last we didn't have schema versioning in the database. Now we do... There might still be value in archiving a copy to permit downgrades, though. But changing the name every version might be more confusing than it's worth I think, plus an inadvertent downgrade will just starting running with a new, blank database as the expected name no longer exists.
If anything we should maybe just switch to
index.leveldb(and then maybeindex.badger, or perhaps skip the intermediate step...).