* Paragon Corporation (l...@pcorp.us) wrote: > I would almost go with forcing everyone to change their existing tables to > typmod if they want to reap the benefits of PostGIS 2.0, > but most of my clients will not go to 2.0 then.
What I havn't heard yet is any explanation or description of *why* they
wouldn't want to move to 2.0 if it only supported the typmod approach..?
> We could try Mark's idea of hacking the catalog tables to automagically
> convert table constraints to typmod but that all sounds pretty scary to me.
The upgrade question should not be terribly difficult to solve by just
using the current geometry_columns table to help with the generation of
the new tables...?
> Especially with my special
> Inheritcance case -- I can just see that failing miserably and screwing up
> my tables.
Can you provide more insight on this..? I'm not familiar with your
'special inheritance case'..
> Anyrate we can't try any of these until you put in place the typmod feature.
> Once you put in place typmod -- I think we can exercise all the various
> options to see which evil is the least of all evils.
Part of the issue here, however, is if there's something the typmod
approach isn't doing currently that it could/should be doing which would
resolve these concerns...?
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ postgis-users mailing list postgis-users@postgis.refractions.net http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
