> "nicks.emails" wrote:
[back on list -- use 'reply ALL' to keep it on list. This is the second
try -- I misspelled pgsql-hackers the first time ;-(]
> tables to find any intersecting points, I read one of the replies
> about having to recompile the postgres system so as to dereference a
> NULL
> pointer so it is not a null pointer, do you have any info
> to help me to do this.
I do not have the info to do this. Tom Lane, the one who replied with
that bit, does. However, according to Tom, that whole bit of code is a
mess.
> Also when will version 7 be available as I was hoping to use postgres
> to complete a
> University project which involves intersecting lsegs and time is
> running out
I certainly feel for you; however, I have absolutely no control over
that timing -- while I maintain the RPM's for PostgreSQL, the other
developers do most of the core work. I am wanting to help out with that
work, but I don't have sufficient knowledge of the backend yet to do so
(maybe in six months I'll be able to contribute something along those
lines). From what I gather, we're looking at the first quarter of 2000
for version 7 -- but that is not set in stone, wood, or anything else
solid.
If you want to do the lseg intersection yourself, you can:
1.) Retrieve the lseg's and do the intersection in your client program;
2.) Write a PL/TCL or PL/PGSQL function to do the intersection;
3.) Write a C function to do the intersection;
4.) Fix the existing intersection code.
Number 4 is the most useful, but by far the most difficult of the four
options -- PostgreSQL has a very steep learning curve for developers!
However, the developers here will be glad to help you understand what
needs fixing.
If and when you do fix this, your patches would be most welcome, of
course.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
