On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 20:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
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 wi
On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 15:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Chris Traylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1.) Is anyone else currently working on this?
No, and AFAIR no one has ever even asked for it. I'm a little dubious
about doubling the storage requirements for geometry data and l
ay need to deal with >4D in the future (if all goes well), and as we all know, 2D is cute, and fairly straightforward, but it rests upon some assumptions/shortcuts that just don't hold, when you start moving to more complex analysis.
Paul
On 4-Sep-05, at 6:55 PM, Chris Traylor wrot
Please excuse any stupidity, as although I've used postgres for quite some time, this is my first foray into developing for it. I'm working on converting the geometry stuff in adt to support 4 dimensions. For my own use, I plan on patching 8.0.3 with the files I edited in the 8.1beta source, ri
