[postgis-devel] Vote to drop support for 8.4 in 2.1

[Sandro Santilli]

Ok, I surrender, let's go. I'll upgrade as soon as I'll have stable
network connection again, hopefully in a few days...
Hope Ubuntu 12.04 has a supported PostgreSQL.

--strk;

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 02:50:54PM -0700, Paul Ramsey wrote:
> +1
> 
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 4:51 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland
> <mark.cave-ayland at ilande.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 23/05/12 07:46, Paragon Corporation wrote:
> >
> >> Now that we are all entrenched in 2.1, I'd like to get this out of the
> >> way so we don't have to waste time testing it anymore.
> >> I propose we drop 8.4 support in 2.1 because:
> >> 1) 2.1 is going to have to support 9.0,9.1,9.2 (and yikes maybe even 9.3)
> >> 2) There are many changes in how plpgsql works between 8.4 and the 9.0
> >> that makes it difficult to cross
> >> test - for example how aliases are handled in 9.0 -- so code that works
> >> in 8.4 may not work in 9.0
> >> 3) lack of ordered by aggs in 8.4 which I feel might be important later
> >> on for raster and topology
> >> 4) improvements in window functionality in 9.0 missing in 8.4 (e.g.
> >> great improvements in RANGE and intro of numbered ROWS)
> >> which again would be useful probably more so for topology (possibly
> >> tiger geocoder) than any other piece of PostGIS.
> >> 5) 9.1 and 9.2 will support KNN GIST, 9.2 will support SP GIST so we are
> >> already coding exceptions. I know we still have to for 9.0
> >> 6) PGXS - Mark's hack is needed for 8.4 but not for 9.0 etc. -- Mark can
> >> you confirm?
> >
> >
> > Yes that's correct - I wrote a comment about that in the override Makefile
> > here: http://trac.osgeo.org/postgis/browser/trunk/postgis/Makefile.pgxs.
> >
> >
> >> 7) I think in 2.2 we'll probably be forced to drop 9.0 and dropping two
> >> versions in one release I think is too steep of a slope for our users.
> >
> >
> > As long as we are clear about what we do and do not support, i.e. we clearly
> > fail at configure time if the installed library versions are not sufficient
> > then that's fine with me.
> >
> > +1.