On Sun, Oct 08, 2017 at 11:29:33PM -0400, Regina Obe wrote: > Sandro Santilli <s...@kbt.io>> writes: > >> The proposals are: >> >> 1) Move raster to its own extension "postgis_raster" >> See https://trac.osgeo.org/postgis/ticket/3888 >> >> 2) Provide two versions of extension "postgis" >> See https://trac.osgeo.org/postgis/ticket/3890
> I think approach 2 is better for packagers because a user can more > cleanly migrate to a postgis that doesn't have raster without knowing > anything. Could you elaborate on this ? It looks to me that: - How do users migrate to postgis that doesn't have raster ? proposal 1: ALTER EXTENSION postgis UPDATE TO '<x>noraster' proposal 2: DROP EXTENSION postgis_raster Given the above, user needs to know the value of <x> with proposal 1 while it doesn't with proposal 2. Or did you mean upon upgrade ? > I am against option (1) because as it stands it breaks > backward-compatibility in a huge way, both in upgrading your database > and having different instructions for enabling raster support in your > database. I agree proposal 1 is not backward compatible in terms what you get under the "postgis" extension name. As for instructions I don't think it's a big deal, there are already instructions to create multiple extensions (topology): http://postgis.net/docs/manual-2.4/postgis_installation.html#create_new_db_extensions and enabling raster is already a separate step for non-extension install: http://postgis.net/docs/manual-2.4/postgis_installation.html#create_new_db --strk; _______________________________________________ postgis-users mailing list postgis-users@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
