Hi Alexander

Thanks for your succinct reply.
Actually I considered contributing myself for the first time to
PostgreSQL and/or PostGIS.
So, concluding from your explanations there's no big use case behind
build-in geometric types except serving as reference implementation?
I'm still torn over this splitting resources to implement types like
geometry twice.


2015-10-12 11:24 GMT+02:00 Alexander Korotkov <a.korot...@postgrespro.ru>:
> Hi, Stefan!
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 10:00 PM, Stefan Keller <sfkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Pls. don't misunderstand my questions: They are directed to get an
>> even more useful spatial data handling of PostgreSQL. I'm working with
>> PostGIS since years and are interested in any work regarding spatial
>> types...
>> Can anyone report use cases or applications of these built-in geometric
>> types?
>> Would'nt it be even more useful to concentrate to PostGIS
>> geometry/geography types and extend BRIN to these types?
> Note, that PostGIS is a different project which is maintained by separate
> team. PostGIS have its own priorities, development plan etc.
> PostgreSQL have to be self-consistent. In particular, it should have
> reference implementation of operator classes which extensions can use as the
> pattern. This is why it's important to maintain built-in geometric types.
> In short: once we implement it for built-in geometric types, you can ask
> PostGIS team to do the same for their geometry/geography.
> ------
> Alexander Korotkov
> Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
> The Russian Postgres Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to