<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7652.24">
<TITLE>RE: [postgis-devel] 1.3.4?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I'm still bothered by this. But I'll itemize my concerns<BR>
<BR>
1) ST_Equals IS NOT USED in UNION as I demonstrated in my last email. so fixing that will NOT MAKE any change to the way<BR>
UNION behaves. UNION uses = which is disturbing anyway since it assumes geometries with the same bounding box are equal.<BR>
<BR>
2) We should probably make a note about that somewhere in the docs that UNION (and similarly GROUP BY) does a bounding box grouping/distinct. Its not as big of a deal when you are throwing attributes in there like a primary key field of a table since those would prevent collapsing by bounding box, but is if you don't and is counter-intuitive.<BR>
<BR>
3) If you change ST_Equals to return false with different SRIDs, then why wouldn't you do the same with all relation boolean operators - what exactly is the difference? We said operations/relationships between different SRIDS (except for ST_Transform is not supported) - having ST_Equals behave differently is to me an annoying break in pattern and doesn't even solve the issue that raised this whole question.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: postgis-devel-bounces@postgis.refractions.net on behalf of Kevin Neufeld<BR>
Sent: Mon 9/29/2008 11:17 PM<BR>
To: PostGIS Development Discussion<BR>
Subject: Re: [postgis-devel] 1.3.4?<BR>
<BR>
For the reasons I outlined in postgis-users<BR>
(<A HREF="http://postgis.refractions.net/pipermail/postgis-users/2008-September/021379.html">http://postgis.refractions.net/pipermail/postgis-users/2008-September/021379.html</A>),<BR>
I don't think there is a union issue with different SRID values ... it<BR>
should be that way.<BR>
<BR>
Having ST_Equals return false instead of error on different SRID values<BR>
and ignoring null geometries in aggregate functions is fine with me.<BR>
<BR>
2 cents,<BR>
Kevin<BR>
<BR>
Charlie Savage wrote:<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> Paul Ramsey wrote:<BR>
>> Anyone? We pass regression now, ready to go.<BR>
><BR>
> Any chance of doing something about the ST_EQUALS and union issues<BR>
> with different SRID values?<BR>
><BR>
> Charlie<BR>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
><BR>
> _______________________________________________<BR>
> postgis-devel mailing list<BR>
> postgis-devel@postgis.refractions.net<BR>
> <A HREF="http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel">http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel</A><BR>
> <BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
postgis-devel mailing list<BR>
postgis-devel@postgis.refractions.net<BR>
<A HREF="http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel">http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel</A><BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
<HTML><BODY><P><hr size=1></P>
<P><STRONG>
The substance of this message, including any attachments, may be confidential, legally privileged and/or exempt from disclosure pursuant to Massachusetts law. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
</STRONG></P></BODY></HTML>
<P><hr size=1></P>
<P><STRONG><font size="2" color="339900"> Help make the earth a greener place. If at all possible resist printing this email and join us in saving paper. </p> <p> </font></STRONG></P>