| 110 | | I really think we want to avoid having to produce an intermediate raster of sources. PostGIS is strong on raster/vector interaction and I really don't see why someone would prefer to provide sources as raster. The sources should come from a table of point. Now this raise a certain number of issues:</br> |
| 111 | | </br> |
| 112 | | -What if the table contains more than one point?</br> |
| 113 | | -What if some of those points are outside the raster extent?</br> |
| 114 | | -Another issue is: What if the raster I want to produce does not fit into the PostgreSQL maximum field size?</br> |
| 115 | | </br> |
| 116 | | These are the kind or difficulties one encounters when working in a database.</br> |
| 117 | | </br> |
| | 110 | I really think we want to avoid having to produce an intermediate raster of sources. PostGIS is strong on raster/vector interaction and I really don't see why someone would prefer to provide sources as raster. The sources should come from a table of point. Now this raise a certain number of issues:<br> |
| | 111 | <br> |
| | 112 | -What if the table contains more than one point?<br> |
| | 113 | -What if some of those points are outside the raster extent?<br> |
| | 114 | -Another issue is: What if the raster I want to produce does not fit into the PostgreSQL maximum field size?<br> |
| | 115 | <br> |
| | 116 | These are the kind or difficulties one encounters when working in a database.<br> |
| | 117 | <br> |
