Chris Traylor <[email protected]> writes:
> 1.) Is anyone else currently working on this?
No, and AFAIR no one has ever even asked for it. I'm a little dubious
about doubling the storage requirements for geometry data and likely
creating backwards-compatibility issues to implement a feature that only
you need. I'd suggest keeping these as separate private types rather
than expecting that a patch to replace the 2D types will be accepted.
regards, tom lane
