Chris Traylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 15:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'd suggest keeping these as separate private types rather
>> than expecting that a patch to replace the 2D types will be accepted.
> What do you think about making it a configure option, i.e.
> --enable-4D-geometry (default false)?
Configure options are generally a pain in the neck, particularly if they
cause significant changes in user-visible behavior. What's wrong with
creating separate types instead of changing the behavior of the existing
ones?
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
