another 2c (AUS) worth - but that's 2.1 US cents at the moment! Another strictly user, but I'll go along with Brent's sentiment on this - we are lucky that our servers are all FreeBSD - meaning that we are now running the 9.0.3 / 1.5.2 combination straight out of ports. Upgrades (just went from 8.3 to 9.0) have gone smoothly. I wouldn't say we are early adopters, but our upgrade decisions are now driven by reducing providing backward compatibility... so I would be comfortable with the suggestion of not trying to provide backward compatibility to everyone.
I would however suggest that although I understand Regina's limit of 3, I think maintaining 8.4 support may have to exist beyond the release of PG9.2, as the move from 8.4 -> 9 is probably far more difficult that 8.3 -> 8.4. cheers Ben On 22/04/2011, at 10:59 AM, Stephen Woodbridge wrote: > Brent, > > Well said! I was trying to frame this same sediment. > > Devs, > > I'm on the mapserver PSC and while I am a strong advocate for user issues and > release compatibility, I will be one of the first to say if a major release > is making things faster, better, decreasing maintenance at the cost of > breaking backwards compatibility, then we should do that. The incentive for > users to upgrade is based on there being lots of better, faster, quality > features that they do not have on the old releases. > > Given what I have heard so far, I have old versions I can use if I have to, > and there seems to be lots of goodness to offset the pain of upgrading. So > 2.0 is the time to do this. Waiting until 3.0 will probably not a good idea. > > Thanks for everyone time and efforts on building such a great product! > > -Steve > > On 4/21/2011 9:35 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> 02c worth strictly from a user's perspective: >> >> New users will generally start with current latest versions. So they >> should be fine. >> >> Old users who have difficulty upgrading. (Oft times me :-) my call. If I >> need Postgis to work with 8.3, I use v1.5, if I need later Postgis >> functionailty, I upgrade. I still have a choice, as long as the older >> versions are available, even if they are no longer officially supported. >> >> The rate of development of Postgis & Postgres is great. I'd sooner see >> the developers free to develop, making the most of their valuable & >> appreciated time, rather than spending time just keeping older Postgres >> versions supported. >> >> Thanks everyone! >> >> Brent Wood >> >> --- On *Fri, 4/22/11, Paragon Corporation /<[email protected]>/* wrote: >> >> >> From: Paragon Corporation <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [postgis-users] [postgis-devel] PSC Vote to officially >> drop support for PostgreSQL 8.3 in PostGIS 2.0 >> To: "'PostGIS Development Discussion'" >> <[email protected]> >> Cc: "'PostGIS Users Discussion'" <[email protected]> >> Date: Friday, April 22, 2011, 12:57 PM >> >> >> Mark, >> Agree with Paul -- we did say all PSC should at least feel >> comfortable with >> our position and be able to defend it. Though probably something we >> need to >> clarify in our voting rules. >> >> I've cc'd the regular users group since I feel they would be most >> affected >> by this decision and would like to hear their opinions on it. >> >> First let's keep things in perspective. We are talking about not having >> support for PostgreSQL 8.3 for PostGIS 2.0. We will still do our >> duty and >> support PostgreSQL 8.3 on PostGIS 1.3-1.5 and if we don't have to worry >> about also supporting it on 2.0, we'll have many more cycles to support >> issues that arise in 1.3-1.5. >> >> >> More food for thought - >> From all the signals I have seen, I just feel trying to support >> PostgreSQL >> 8.3 on PostGIS 2.0 is a really bad idea. >> >> I will add this. It's not just the testing, it’s the fact that requiring >> our 2.0 code work on PostgreSQL 8.3 is going to slow our release as all >> PostGIS developers will need to limit their feature set to work on >> 8.3 and >> avoid new features that will make programming easier and more >> efficient. We >> have much more plpgsql code in PostGIS 2.0, than we have ever had in >> prior >> versions, which makes the task much more difficult. >> >> From what I can gather most distros package just one version of >> PostGIS with >> each version of PostgreSQL if they package PostGIS at all. I just >> helped a >> client port their database to an ubuntu server on a different host >> and the >> stable on Ubuntu 10 is 8.4 with PostGIS 1.4. In fact even the backports >> that have PostgreSQL 9.0, I can't find 1.5 so had to compile >> ourselves to >> get 1.5. This is not something most users new to PostgreSQL or >> PostGIS will >> be willing to do. So the reality is if they want to stay stable >> they'll be >> using 8.2 with 1.4. Similar story with centos. Yum rpms packages >> just one >> version of PostGIS with 8.4 and 9.0. For 9.0 it's 1.5. >> >> If we don't make release before the PostgreSQL 9.1 cut (which I really >> fear given all we need to test and finish), we are going to have a >> lot of >> new users starting off their PostGIS experience on 1.5 and it's >> going to be >> next to impossible to get them to upgrade. >> >> If you are at all concerned about new users, you need to take this into >> consideration. The ratio of new users is exponential so that I >> suspect in >> a year's time if it is not the case already we will have a lot more new >> users with less than 1 years experience with PostGIS / PostgreSQL >> than we >> have users with more than 1 years experience. >> >> Thanks, >> Regina >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> </mc/[email protected]> >> [mailto:[email protected] >> </mc/[email protected]>] On >> Behalf Of Paul >> Ramsey >> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 6:54 PM >> To: PostGIS Development Discussion >> Subject: Re: [postgis-devel] PSC Vote to officially drop support for >> PostgreSQL 8.3 in PostGIS 2.0 >> >> -1 means "veto and I'll do what it takes to make my position stick". >> So you're OK being 8.3 compatibility tester and fixer? >> >> P. >> >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Mark Cave-Ayland >> <[email protected] >> </mc/[email protected]>> wrote: >> > On 14/04/11 12:02, Paragon Corporation wrote: >> > >> >> I hereby call a PSC Vote to officially drop support for PostgreSQL >> >> 8.3 in PostGIS 2.0. >> >> >> >> I think enough has been said on the topic that it is clear to me >> >> PostgreSQL >> >> 8.3 is becoming a bit of a burden to maintain for both regression >> >> testing and as well as having to hold back on features >> introduced in >> >> newer versions of PostgreSQL. >> >> >> >> With this official drop we will then be available to take advantage >> >> of >> >> >> >> 1) Window functions, CTES, variadic functions, RETURN QUERY >> EXECUTE, >> >> CASE in pl/pgsql, EXECUTE using, user-defined exceptions, >> >> and a slew of other features itemized in PostgreSQL feature matrix >> >> http://www.postgresql.org/about/featurematrix >> >> >> >> 2) Not have to regress test against 8.3 any longer >> >> 3) Get rid of the stupid hack we have in place for pgxs >> >> 4) Get rid of that conditional logic we have in place for >> aggregation >> >> to handle versions that don't support windowing >> >> >> >> This is just one step, but my more aggressive requirement which I >> >> shall put in as a second PSC Vote, is to not support more than >> >> 3 versions of PostgreSQL on any version of PostGIS unless there are >> >> extenuating circumstances. More on that later. >> >> >> >> All PSC voters, please give your vote. >> > >> > I'm probably in the minority, but -1 from me. >> > >> > >> > ATB, >> > >> > Mark. >> > >> > -- >> > Mark Cave-Ayland - Senior Technical Architect PostgreSQL - PostGIS >> > Sirius Corporation plc - control through freedom >> > http://www.siriusit.co.uk >> > t: +44 870 608 0063 >> > >> > Sirius Labs: http://www.siriusit.co.uk/labs >> > _______________________________________________ >> > postgis-devel mailing list >> > [email protected] >> </mc/[email protected]> >> > http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> postgis-devel mailing list >> [email protected] >> </mc/[email protected]> >> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel >> ----------------------------------------- >> The substance of this message, including any attachments, may be >> confidential, legally privileged and/or exempt from disclosure >> pursuant to >> Massachusetts law. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you >> received >> this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material >> from any >> computer. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> postgis-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> </mc/[email protected]> >> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> postgis-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users > > _______________________________________________ > postgis-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users _______________________________________________ postgis-users mailing list [email protected] http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
