[postgis-users] Preparing for Topology - St_CreateTopoGeo

[Chris English]

-- $Id: topology.sql.in.c 8239 2011-11-24 21:13:22Z strk $--Pretty recent in the scheme of things
----------------------------------------
> From: sglish at hotmail.com
> To: postgis-users at postgis.refractions.net
> Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 11:20:35 -0500
> Subject: Re: [postgis-users] Preparing for Topology - St_CreateTopoGeo
>
>
> > Did you re-source topology/topology.sql after a new "make" ?
> > All of the topology support is plpgsql code, so it takes redefinition
> > of the functions to get the changes.
> No, I probably didn't as I was in a windows binary, was lazy, didn'tgive it much thought.  I'll try a make as see how it goes.
> > This reminds me: it would be worth having a function to extract
> > version of topology.sql file at time of last run.
> I think extract version of topology.sql, along with extract os will cut down your futuretroubleshooting enormously as I expect it will have a bright future and there will bedifficulties.
> Just getting my head around the topology nomenclature (naming) and proceduresto perform the sanity checking for generating topology from shape fileshas given me a profound respect for how deeply you dove into all this.
> I'll keep plugging away.Chris
>
> ----------------------------------------
> > Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 17:07:45 +0100
> > From: strk at keybit.net
> > To: postgis-users at postgis.refractions.net
> > Subject: Re: [postgis-users] Preparing for Topology - St_CreateTopoGeo
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 10:31:19AM -0500, Chris English wrote:
> >
> > > I guess this is the latest svn.
> >
> > Did you re-source topology/topology.sql after a new "make" ?
> > All of the topology support is plpgsql code, so it takes redefinition
> > of the functions to get the changes.
> >
> > This reminds me: it would be worth having a function to extract
> > version of topology.sql file at time of last run.
> >
> > > By 'reducing' input data might that be saying take municipalities,
> > > a smaller number of multipolygons, as against a whole county?
> >
> > Yes, less data in input as small as possible to still reproduce
> > the issue. Maybe data in the bounding box of the offending edge
> > would be more likely to trigger it.
> >
> > > I have been watching the pledge drive with interest, figuring that the
> > > resultant incremental functionality would shieldor help shield users
> > > like myself who don't understand thatpigs are killed to make pork
> > > sausage.
> > > If I had 250 euros, they would be yours today.
> >
> > Thank you :)
> >
> > --strk;
> >
> > ,------o-.
> > | __/ | Thank you for PostGIS-2.0 Topology !
> > | / 2.0 | http://www.pledgebank.com/postgistopology
> > `-o------'
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > postgis-users mailing list
> > postgis-users at postgis.refractions.net
> > http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-users mailing list
> postgis-users at postgis.refractions.net
> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users