I'm afraid I agree with Jan on this. Like Brent said you'd want to know about the assumption being made, but I'd just assume not have warnings and without warnings things like this where there is no match are just too hard to debug. And code running in lalala land is not going to be looking at warnings.
Say your table had a projection of 4326 once and then later your change it to 2249 or whatever and had no idea there was code lying around thinking it was working with 4326. Your code would mysteriously just stop producing results or odd results. I'd rather it just break than do the logically wrong thing. -1 Thanks, Regina -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jan Hartmann Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 4:52 PM To: PostGIS Users Discussion Subject: Re: [postgis-users] More Semantics: SRID Matching I wouldn't do that. My experience is that you'll run into errors that are very hard to detect when you allow this sort of "default" behavior. What's wrong whith an extra setsrid or so? Jan Paul Ramsey wrote: > I just did this: > > aggtest=# select name from tm_world_2 where st_dwithin(the_geom, > 'POINT(32.4122 -21.2178)', 0.0001); > ERROR: Operation on two geometries with different SRIDs > > And you know what, that seems a bit harsh to me. Given an operation > where one SRID is known (st_srid(the_geom) == 4326), and the other is > unknown (-1), can we not simply assume that everything is in the known > SRID? > > Comments? > > P > _______________________________________________ > postgis-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users > > _______________________________________________ postgis-users mailing list [email protected] http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users _______________________________________________ postgis-users mailing list [email protected] http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
