Alfresco 5.2 is now compatible with Postgres 10 and 11?

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
sistemi
Active Member II

Alfresco 5.2 is now compatible with Postgres 10 and 11?

Jump to solution

Hi, I noticed that "Alfresco supported platforms" page was updated: now, if you click on the Alfresco version you are searching details of, you are redirected to the new docs.alfresco.com that is editable through GitHub.

What puzzles me is that searching supported platforms for Alfresco 5.2 now reports that it is compatible with Postgres 9.5 and 11: here are the steps that I followed:

  1. Go on https://www.alfresco.com/it/services/subscription/supported-platforms
  2. Click on Supported Platforms for Alfresco Content Services 5.2.x 
  3. On the page that opens click on Supported platforms 
  4. The table that is displayed shows compatibility with Postgres 10 and 11

Is it ok? Or some links are not pointing to the correct location? I suspect that those are supported platforms for Alfresco 6.x .

If I manually type the URL https://docs.alfresco.com/content-services/5.2/support/ I receive a "page not found error".

Moreover, on Github I found this page: https://github.com/Alfresco/docs-alfresco/blob/master/_archive/content-services/5.2/concepts/support... related to version 5.2 that reports that it is compatible with Postgres 9.4 , 9.5 and 11.

Which one is the correct documentation page?

1 Solution

Accepted Solutions
afaust
Master

Re: Alfresco 5.2 is now compatible with Postgres 10 and 11?

Jump to solution

Unless you are a paying Alfresco customer, the officially supported list is nothing more than a suggestion anyway, as you won't get any immediate support from Alfresco anyway.

Since the documentation on docs.alfresco.com has recently received a large overhaul, there may be some discrepencies between historic information (in the GitHub archive you found) and what you may find elsewhere. Currently, the olderst version for which you can get the supported platforms is 6.0: https://docs.alfresco.com/content-services/6.0/support/

Alfresco generally does not change / update the versions of supported databases and other tools within a release (e.g. 5.2 vs. 5.2.1, 5.2.2, and so on) unless there have been significant reasons, i.e. deprecations of versions or specific support issues.

With regards to databases like PostgreSQL, you can generally use anything that is the same or a newer version than the one(s) listed. Alfresco will only list additional / multiple versions if they specifically did separate evaluation runs with those versions.

So, to answer the question in the topic: Alfresco has always been compatible with Postgres 10 and 11 - it just may not have been tested before / inititally, so the documentation may have been updated afterwards.

View solution in original post

1 Reply
afaust
Master

Re: Alfresco 5.2 is now compatible with Postgres 10 and 11?

Jump to solution

Unless you are a paying Alfresco customer, the officially supported list is nothing more than a suggestion anyway, as you won't get any immediate support from Alfresco anyway.

Since the documentation on docs.alfresco.com has recently received a large overhaul, there may be some discrepencies between historic information (in the GitHub archive you found) and what you may find elsewhere. Currently, the olderst version for which you can get the supported platforms is 6.0: https://docs.alfresco.com/content-services/6.0/support/

Alfresco generally does not change / update the versions of supported databases and other tools within a release (e.g. 5.2 vs. 5.2.1, 5.2.2, and so on) unless there have been significant reasons, i.e. deprecations of versions or specific support issues.

With regards to databases like PostgreSQL, you can generally use anything that is the same or a newer version than the one(s) listed. Alfresco will only list additional / multiple versions if they specifically did separate evaluation runs with those versions.

So, to answer the question in the topic: Alfresco has always been compatible with Postgres 10 and 11 - it just may not have been tested before / inititally, so the documentation may have been updated afterwards.

View solution in original post