From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Dann Corbit <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: geo_decls.h oopsie... |
Date: | 2002-02-14 20:21:59 |
Message-ID: | 3C6C1C67.9A45413B@fourpalms.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > But to compare floating point, those are simply wrong.
> See previous discussions concerning the quality of the builtin geometric
> types. Not clear that it's worth worrying about, unless you want to go
> in for a wholesale overhaul. My own opinion is that PostGIS will
> supersede the need for these types...
Oops. I think that we will welcome any updates and fixes to any of the
built in features of PostgreSQL, no matter our individual opinions of
the usefulness of a particular feature (right??). In this case, the
return value patches would seem to be important and the second topic
should be addressed also.
- Thomas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dann Corbit | 2002-02-14 20:32:15 | Re: geo_decls.h oopsie... |
Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2002-02-14 20:17:13 | Re: FWD: overlaps() bug? |