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

[Chris Hodgson]

I just installed ubuntu 12.04 myself, postgresql 9.1.3, postgis 1.5.3, 
geos 3.2.2, and proj 4.7.0 are all packaged and that was good enough for 
what I needed. Took a bit to get used to the new default UI components, 
but I'm starting to like them.

Chris

On 12-06-01 07:45 AM, Sandro Santilli wrote:
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-devel mailing list
> postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel