Release notes foreign keys

[PVince81]

@patrickjahns you have suggested mentioning the addition of foreign keys in the release notes.

See my draft. I'm not sure what else to add there, did you have anything in mind ?
Something like "if your database / setup doesn't support it, you should ... do what ?"

[PVince81]

cc @pmaier1 FYI

This topic came up when some people had troubles with the foreign keys during update.
So far the causes aren't known yet.

See:

• Update 10.0.8.5 to 10.1.0 failed on shared hoster core#34598: shared hoster, not enough permissions for foreign keys
• Update from 10.0.10 to 10.1.0 on Debian gives error "Doctrine\DBAL\Exception\DriverException" core#34572
• possibly also [10.1.0 Beta] SchemaException during upgrade to 10.1.0 beta core#33963: was not reproducible

[patrickjahns]

Something like "if your database / setup doesn't support it, you should ... do what ?"

Hmm - there are a couple of things to check ( like having the right storage engine for mysql/mariadb (innodb)) - but other than that - we kind of require this currently and no fallback in place

Other ideas @DeepDiver1975 ?

[settermjd]

While it's good that users are notified, via this update, that foreign keys are utilised, because of the WebDAV locks feature; just telling them that isn't enough. As others have said, adding more comprehensive information about them, issues that may be encountered, and how to correct those issues should also be added.

[settermjd]

After reading through the linked issues, the debug information and resolution steps should definitely be added to an FAQ/help section.

[settermjd]

As covered in the comments, this, imho, needs further work.

[phil-davis]

Yes, for me when I read just the fews lines here so far, I think "well isn't that interesting, the software uses a database feature that has existed for decades." But I don't think "oh, maybe my database won't support or work with this for some reason", because in my decades in the industry I have never contemplated a production installation of a relational database where foreign keys do not work.

[pmaier1]

For whom is this information relevant and why?
As @settermjd points out, we need to provide these information as otherwise there's no value of adding it here - it rather causes confusion, IMO.

[settermjd]

Can you comment further, @PVince81.

[PVince81]

This is not ready for merging. Need someone with more deployment knowledge to chime in and explain what an admin should be aware of.

Or should we just say something like "it's the first time we introduce foreign keys so there is a slight chance that you'll experience issues during upgrades if you have an exotic setup" ? @patrickjahns

[settermjd]

ping @patrickjahns.

[settermjd]

@PVince81, as Patrick Jahns has moved on, who is the best person to talk to about #683?

[mmattel]

remind readers that SQLite is not recommended/supported for production use anyway

👍

[phil-davis]

The number of commits has got crazy here - I will rebase and squash
Done

[phil-davis]

LGTM - can be backported as far as you want.
Since it is and addition to a quite old part of the release notes, do we backport further than usual? Up to you!

[settermjd]

LGTM - can be backported as far as you want.
Since it is and addition to a quite old part of the release notes, do we backport further than usual? Up to you!

Current policy is to only backport to the latest two release branches.