Re: [HACKERS] 4D Geometry

2005-09-06 Thread Tim Allen
Peter Eisentraut wrote: Chris Traylor wrote: Configure options are generally a pain in the neck, Granted. Especially, if all the ifdefs start making the source hard to read, but they are a viable compile-time way to allow the user to make the decision for themselves. This missing piece of

Re: [HACKERS] 4D Geometry

2005-09-06 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Chris Traylor wrote: > > Configure options are generally a pain in the neck, > > Granted. Especially, if all the ifdefs start making the source hard > to read, but they are a viable compile-time way to allow the user to > make the decision for themselves. This missing piece of information here is

Re: [HACKERS] 4D Geometry

2005-09-05 Thread Chris Traylor
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 will be accepted. > What do y

Re: [HACKERS] 4D Geometry

2005-09-05 Thread Tom Lane
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. > --ena

Re: [HACKERS] 4D Geometry

2005-09-05 Thread Chris Traylor
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 likely creating ba

Re: [HACKERS] 4D Geometry

2005-09-05 Thread Tom Lane
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 likely creating backwards-compatibility issues to implement a feature that

Re: [HACKERS] 4D Geometry

2005-09-04 Thread Chris Traylor
On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 21:45 -0700, Paul Ramsey wrote: Chris, PostGIS already has 4d geometry, though few functions that work with that fourth dimension (how far is 8am, in Paris from 4pm in London?). Have you checked if there is some room to meet your needs with some PostGIS enhanceme

[HACKERS] 4D Geometry

2005-09-04 Thread Chris Traylor
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