[postgis-devel] [postgis-users] Allowing use of PostGIS EXTENSION w/out raster

[Sandro Santilli]

[ removed postgis-users as this discussion is too detailed ]

On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 10:45:41AM -0400, Regina Obe wrote:
> 
> >>> The proposals are:
> >>
> >>  1) Move raster to its own extension "postgis_raster"
> >>     See https://trac.osgeo.org/postgis/ticket/3888
> 
> > this gets us two extensions, and if we split into N, we will have N
> extensions.
> 
> Greg I'm missing something here.  If you go with this option you still have
> 
> 2^N and a dependency wreck. 

Let's make an example, assuming we only support upgrading
from 2.4.0. My list goes as follows:


 proposal_1 (postgis_raster extension):

    - postgis--3.0.0.sql
    - postgis--2.4.0--3.0.0.sql (x supported upgrades)
    - postgis--3.0.0--3.0.0next.sql
    - postgis--3.0.0next--3.0.0.sql

    - postgis_raster--3.0.0.sql
    - postgis_raster--2.4.0--3.0.0.sql (x supported upgrades)
    - postgis_raster--3.0.0--3.0.0next.sql
    - postgis_raster--3.0.0next--3.0.0.sql

 proposal_2 (encoded in version):

    - postgis--3.0.0.sql
    - postgis--2.4.0--3.0.0.sql (x supported upgrades)
    - postgis--3.0.0--3.0.0next.sql
    - postgis--3.0.0next--3.0.0.sql

    - postgis--3.0.0noraster.sql
    - postgis--2.4.0--3.0.0noraster.sql (x supported upgrades)
    - postgis--3.0.0--3.0.0norasternext.sql
    - postgis--3.0.0norasternext--3.0.0noraster.sql

    - postgis--3.0.0--3.0.0noraster.sql
    - postgis--3.0.0noraster--3.0.0.sql

So if my list is correct I count just 2 more files in Regina's proposal.

--strk;