[postgis-devel] GiST estimate and index_extent()
strk at refractions.net
strk at refractions.net
Thu Jan 13 03:08:10 PST 2005
Paul actually did not express his preference about this, and
actually I'm not convinced as well...
I'm not sure 2 days will be enough, not for the implementation
but for the decisions reguarding backward-compatibility.
If we find a clean solution today I think that would be ok.
We currently have a fix_geometry_columns() which fixes
f_table_schema, attrelid and varattnum.
The function is automatically invoked by AddGeometryColumn()
What we could do is drop the automatic invokation and improve
it to drop attrelid, varattnum and stats if present for PG>=800
and to change stats into a stakind1 smalint / stanumbers1 float
for PG<800 if stats is present. Note that in this case the HISTOGRAM2D
type would be pretty useless, so we could drop it as well.
About TODOs, running regression tests I found that lwgparser
does not check polygon validity as did HWGEOM do. Maybe that
should be added, but I guess could wait for 1.0 or RC2.
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:34:38AM -0000, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: strk at refractions.net [mailto:strk at refractions.net]
> > Sent: 13 January 2005 08:05
> > To: Mark Cave-Ayland
> > Cc: 'PostGIS Development Discussion'
> > Subject: Re: [postgis-devel] GiST estimate and index_extent()
> > Mark, I think RC1 must really come out now...
> > And the histogram2d handling seems not straihtforward to me.
> > I think what we need is a "live" upgrade script, able to
> > update a live installation from RC1 up. This would simplify
> > operations like changing geometry_columns definition and the like.
> > --strk;
> Hi strk,
> If you really feel that RC1 should come out now then I guess we should wait
> until PostGIS 1.1 as there is no point putting in such a large change after
> going to RC. I appreciate that it is not a simple change to do (it may take
> a couple of days), but I really think it will help debug and problems that
> may occur with the statistics and help simplify the code at the same time.
> It would be have been nice to include this in 1.0 since as it is so
> different to 0.9, I think users would be more tolerant to this type of
> change than they would if, say going from 0.8 to 0.9, or 1.0 to 1.1 - but I
> respect that the final decision rests with you and Paul.
> (BTW this was the only outstanding issue on my TODO list - I guess everyone
> else's TODO list is now empty?)
> Kind regards,
> WebBased Ltd
> South West Technology Centre
> Tamar Science Park
> PL6 8BT
> T: +44 (0)1752 791021
> F: +44 (0)1752 791023
> W: http://www.webbased.co.uk
> postgis-devel mailing list
> postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
For standing up against patentability of software,
Thank You, Poland!
Read the intervention: http://kwiki.ffii.org/ConsPolon041221En
Send your thanks: thankyoupoland.info
Read/do more: http://www.noepatents.org/
More information about the postgis-devel