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 only you need. I'd suggest keeping these as separate private types rather than expecting that a patch to replace the 2D types will be accepted. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org