Timescaledb: POLL: For what additional platforms should we offer binary releases?

[mfreed]

We often get various requests to offer a binary releases, with clear package management, for different platforms. It would be useful to get feedback from the community as to what platforms they'd like a native binary package for.

So, please signify your interest with a thumbs-up in the comments below. (Or suggest a new platform if we missed it.)

[mfreed]

Debian

[mfreed]

RedHat

[mfreed]

SUSE Linux

[mfreed]

Windows x64

[mfreed]

Windows x32

[mfreed]

Mac OS X

[mfreed]

@lumberg72 Are you having problems installing on CentOS via our yum instructions? http://docs.timescale.com/v0.8/getting-started/installation/linux/installation-yum

[lumberg72]

@mfreed Oh, no. Sorry, I hadn't even looked yet. I'm just doing some initial prototyping in Windows. If all goes well, I'll deploy it to a CentOS machine.... and just thought, "yeah, I'll want the binaries for that". But since you already have it, I'll delete my CentOS comment to help keep a clean poll :)

[bzoop]

You might consider changing RedHat to RedHat/CentOS. I bet more people run CentOS than upstream RedHat/RHEL.

[RobAtticus]

@cactus - We actually support CentOS already:
http://docs.timescale.com/v0.8/getting-started/installation/linux/installation-yum

I actually believe this will work on RHEL too but haven't confirmed.

[bzoop]

Ah. My apologies. I thought the poll was looking for overall usage, not just additional platforms.

[RobAtticus]

No worries!

[BACtaki]

Windows x64

[RobAtticus]

Thanks @BACtaki but Windows x64 is already listed ^ (4th reply) :)

[vdedyukhin]

Oracle Linux

[dquang]

Windows 64.

Building from source on Windows 64 is a nightmare and normally come out with a huge size binary in my experience (I am not a IT-Developer though).

I have tried docker (installed docker, pulled the package but it simply did not work, only docker running normally).

[RobAtticus]

Thanks @dquang, just to clarify are you talking about our binary specifically or binaries for Win64 in general? Looking at our dll it only appears to be 100-200kb

[dquang]

Thanks @RobAtticus for your reply. My point was: just make a binary available for Win64. As a user, it is a nightmare for us to make it ourself.

About the size: I just talking about it in general. For example, I have built from source a program called PgModeller and got the binary with 1GB when installed. However, the developer makes it cost only 51MB. That is the different between a professional developer and a user.

[mterron]

Alpine linux? Building from source works perfectly fine so no big deal.

[thinkwelltwd]

I'd be glad for CentOS 6 support. Have nearly 200 v6 machines running PG 10.2 on which I'd also like to use timescaledb.

[RobAtticus]

@thinkwelltwd If you got PG 10.2 to install on there, you can likely install via the RPM (which is built on centos7) or build from source.

[thinkwelltwd]

If you got PG 10.2 to install on there , you can likely install via the RPM (which is built on centos7) or build from source.

v6 is one of the officially supported platforms. I'm sure I can build from source, but isn't the point of packaging to avoid that?

[RobAtticus]

@thinkwelltwd Have you tried our current binaries?
http://docs.timescale.com/v0.8/getting-started/installation/linux/installation-yum

If it works, I will work on making sure going forward that it continues to work and update the docs to note it can work on CentOS 6. I just haven't personally tested it myself.

[RobAtticus]

Currently we say CentOS 7 because we had a lot of people try building on source with CentOS 6 with old versions of GCC that did not work. So to be safe I went with the CentOS version that had a working version of GCC.

[thinkwelltwd]

CentOS 7 binaries don't work on CentOS 6 as the glibc library version is mismatched.

[root@system x86_64]# rpm -ivh timescaledb_10-0.8.0-1.rhel7.x86_64.rpm 
error: Failed dependencies:
    libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit) is needed by timescaledb_10-0.8.0-1.rhel7.x86_64

So to be safe I went with the CentOS version that had a working version of GCC.

I've used Developer Toolset to get various recent versions of GCC. I don't know if that would be an option in your build process or not. Or if you posted a sample spec file, or documented the RPM building process for older versions, I suppose that would be OK.

But still, if there was an official RPM for all versions that PG10 supports, then "a lot of people building on source with CentOS 6 with old versions of GCC that did not work" could just be referred to the v6 binary :grin:

[RobAtticus]

Thanks for the info, I'll take a look into supporting the older version then :)

[aharonh]

How about supporting the arm64 achitecture for various linuxes?

[peterbeasley]

Another vote for arm64

[RobAtticus]

For all of those waiting for Debian binaries, wait no more :) We now have binaries available for Debian 7, 8, and 9:

http://docs.timescale.com/v0.9/getting-started/installation/linux/installation-apt-debian

[RobAtticus]

For those looking for Windows x64 binaries, we have an initial release that we'd like some people to try. We're providing a .zip that contains all the necessary files + a setup.exe that will detect where to install the files. You need to have the pg_config binary in your PATH for this to work, or supply it as a flag to the binary. If you'd like to try it out, please download here:
https://timescalereleases.blob.core.windows.net/windows/timescaledb-0.9.0-windows-amd64.zip

[RobAtticus]

The aforementioned Windows installation instructions are located here now:
http://docs.timescale.com/latest/getting-started/installation/windows/installation-windows

[hongquan]

We are looking forward to use TimescaleDB on ARMv7 (BeagleBone), running Debian 9.