Opened 7 years ago

Closed 6 years ago

#1850 closed defect (fixed)

upgrade scripts for postgis 2.0 and 2.1

Reported by: robe Owned by: strk
Priority: blocker Milestone: PostGIS 2.1.0
Component: build/upgrade/install Version: trunk
Keywords: Cc:

Description

the upgrade script for PostGIS 2.0 is mislabled (should be 2.0-2.1 or some such thing) and we have no PostGIS 2.1 minor upgrade scripts.

Extensions we need to break out too.

I propose we start with a clean slate for 2.1 minor script -- if someone is running 2.1 there is no need for all that drop alter etc. stuff that might get in the way if they have views etc built on those. Just adds baggage. Not sure the easiest way to do that without creating a maintenance nightmare.

Change History (7)

comment:1 Changed 7 years ago by robe

It looks like this is part done. Minor scripts are correctly labeled now and seem to read from version.config but we still have the issue with junk left from betas.

I propose we get rid of all pre-2.0 release junk those interim postgis beta1,beta2,etc stuff and start with the assumption that people are running 2.0 or higher.

For extensions that's already done in upgradeable_versions.mk (doesn't allow upgrading from beta). I think we still have a lot of dead weight in rtpostgis_drop.sql.in.c and postgis drop after/before that assumes you are coming from a beta release that we can chuck for 2.1 to clean up the slate a bit.

Does anyone have issue with me moving forward with getting rid of junk?

comment:2 Changed 7 years ago by strk

I'm still not using extension much so a question: are all those "postgis--2.0.x--2.0.CURRENT" any different to each other ? Or are there really only a "2.0-to-2.0.CURRENT" and a "2.0-to-2.1" in terms of content ?

comment:3 Changed 7 years ago by robe

Right now they are all EXACTLY the same. Not even a distinction between 2.0-2.0.current and 2.0-2.1.

Though we will need to make the distinction in 2.1 probably between 2.0.-2.1, and 2.1-minor. Have we even made the distinction non-extension install? I don't think so.

comment:4 Changed 7 years ago by strk

No, they've never been different with non-extension. It could as well be called "postgis_soft_upgrade.sql".

Isn't it ironic how user friendliness can turn eneminess ?

comment:5 Changed 7 years ago by robe

I thought they were different like 1.3-1.4, 1.4_minor etc.

I'm failing to see the eneminess feature with user friendliness you are talking about here. extension or no-extension, we are going to eventually need a 2.0-2.1, 2.1_minor as we had in 1.0 series. It's called discipline :).

comment:6 Changed 7 years ago by robe

Looks to me like this is done except for raster and topology.

Extension is all set.

comment:7 Changed 6 years ago by robe

Resolution: fixed
Status: newclosed

I think raster is all set too since dustymugs change at r11523 so closing this out.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.