All, * Sandro Santilli (s...@keybit.net) wrote: > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 03:15:26AM -0400, Paragon Corporation wrote: > > So that is why I was proposing a hybrid -- geometry_columns -- so new > > PostGIS can work with older tools
Having a hybrid may work for backwards-compatibility reasons, but we
should have a solution which doesn't require such an ugly hack for new
code/systems/etc.
> > Though I suppose that may be more confusing than it's worth and there is the
> > case of views
Regarding views, what I would actually suggest is that we allow users a
way to tell update the typmod for the view definition directly in the
catalog rather than suggesting that they use a seperate table as an
override.
We could do this pretty easily using a function which the user would
call (instead of adding to or updating a table) which would update the
catalog definition for the view. We could also try to see if there's a
way to support doing this through 'alter view'.
> My opinion is starting to form on this and currently is closer to
> "maintain a real table".
This might be acceptable as a backwards-compatibility mode, but I think
we need a solution which doesn't depend on overriding values that are in
the catalog.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ postgis-users mailing list postgis-users@postgis.refractions.net http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
