[postgis-devel] In Place Upgrade
Paul Ramsey
pramsey at cleverelephant.ca
Tue Sep 24 11:22:44 PDT 2019
> On Sep 24, 2019, at 11:21 AM, Regina Obe <lr at pcorp.us> wrote:
>
> What was the output of your
>
> SELECT postgis_full_version();
>
> On your old cluster? I just see 3.0.0 before and the fact your raster procs says from 2.5.1 leads me to believe you aren't running with the latest 2.5 scripts as Raul suggested might be the issue.
I’m in the middle of an upgrade run, but I’ll find out forthwith. It’s possible pgdg bundled 2.5.1 in the 2.5.3 package??? Would be crazy if true.
P
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: postgis-devel [mailto:postgis-devel-bounces at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:postgis-devel-bounces at lists.osgeo.org>] On Behalf Of Paul Ramsey
> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 1:37 PM
> To: PostGIS Development Discussion <postgis-devel at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:postgis-devel at lists.osgeo.org>>
> Subject: Re: [postgis-devel] In Place Upgrade
>
>
>
>> On Sep 24, 2019, at 10:20 AM, Regina Obe <lr at pcorp.us> wrote:
>>
>> We just need to fix the view. I think you can copy the definition from 2.5 and backport to 2.4.
>
> Except I already had 2.5 in place something is very odd here. I did replace both geometry_columns and raster_overviews, and then the pg_upgrade from 11/2.5.3 to 12/3.0.0alpha4 worked.
>
> Still some broken bits though full version noted the mismatch between function versions and extension version. Running extension upgrade appeared to work, but left a broken raster install lying around.
>
> Unfortunately the packages aren t currently available to test, since the pg11 postgis packages are borked right now and there is no 12/2.5 package to work with, but probably the recommended upgrade path will be to stairstep up either the postgis version first and then the pg or vice versa, rather than this 2-in-1 path I m testing now.
>
> P.
>
>
>
>
> postgis=# select postgis_full_version();
>
> postgis_full_version
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------------
> POSTGIS="3.0.0alpha4 r17702" [EXTENSION] PGSQL="110" (procs need upgrade for use with "120") GEOS="3.7.1-CAPI-1.11.1 27a5e771" PRO J="6.2.0" GDAL="GDAL 3.0.1, released 2019/06/28" LIBXML="2.9.1" LIBJSON="0.11" (core procs from "2.5.1 r17027" need upgrade) RASTER (raster procs from "2.5.1 r17027" need upgrade)
> (1 row)
>
> postgis=# alter extension postgis update;
> WARNING: unpackaging raster
> WARNING: PostGIS Raster functionality has been unpackaged
> HINT: type `SELECT postgis_extensions_upgrade(); to finish the upgrade. After upgrading, if you want to drop raster, run: DROP EXTENSION postgis_raster; ALTER EXTENSION postgis=# \dx
> List of installed extensions
> Name | Version | Schema | Description
> ---------+-------------+------------+-----------------------------------
> ---------+-------------+------------+----------------------------------
> plpgsql | 1.0 | pg_catalog | PL/pgSQL procedural language
> postgis | 3.0.0alpha4 | public | PostGIS geometry, geography, and raster spatial types and functions
> (2 rows)
>
> postgis=# create extension postgis_raster;
> ERROR: PostGIS Raster is already installed in schema 'public'
> CONTEXT: PL/pgSQL function inline_code_block line 10 at RAISE
>
>
>
>>
>> Looks like the new function pg_get_constraintdef we are using has
>> existed at least since 9.2 so we should be okay with 2.4 fixing
>>
>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/functions-info.html#FUNCTIONS-INFO
>> -CATALOG-TABLE
>>
>>
>> From: postgis-devel [mailto:postgis-devel-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On
>> Behalf Of Paul Ramsey
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 1:00 PM
>> To: PostGIS Development Discussion <postgis-devel at lists.osgeo.org>
>> Subject: Re: [postgis-devel] In Place Upgrade
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 24, 2019, at 9:58 AM, rmrodriguez at carto.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Already at 2.5.3
>>>> postgis25_11-2.5.3-3.rhel7.x86_64
>>>
>>> That's the binary, are the scripts installed in the database at 2.5.3 too?
>>
>> Yes, this isn t a production system, this is a blank (with one spatial table) database created today just to test upgrading against packages.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> What would fixing 2.4 entail? Is there a ticket I can use to track this down? I think it s worthwhile, probably.
>>>
>>> It was done for 3 and 2.5 in
>>> https://trac.osgeo.org/postgis/ticket/4231
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> P
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ra l Mar n Rodr guez
>>> carto.com <http://carto.com/>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> postgis-devel mailing list
>>> postgis-devel at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:postgis-devel at lists.osgeo.org>
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> postgis-devel mailing list
>> postgis-devel at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:postgis-devel at lists.osgeo.org>
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel>
>
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-devel mailing list
> postgis-devel at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:postgis-devel at lists.osgeo.org>
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel>
>
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-devel mailing list
> postgis-devel at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:postgis-devel at lists.osgeo.org>
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/attachments/20190924/85b5cf5d/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the postgis-devel
mailing list