Re: [QGIS-Developer] Status of transaction support in Geopackages

Hi Luigi, I think you summed up things right. For the sake of the thread readability, I re-post Mark's answer that for some reason was not considered a response to this thread by the mailman list. -- Feb 27, 2018; 1:47pm >> Do you have a link to the issues? Does it ignore them or worse?

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Status of transaction support in Geopackages

I agree about GDLA/OGR, and are the positions already expressed in the Mark's PR but take into account that: 1) maintainer could be Mark (as for other core plugins e.g. MetaSearch). I agree that having only a maintainer for a complex core part can be dangerous for quality of the overall project

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Status of transaction support in Geopackages

> Not sure if the PSC can help here? Hi Andreas, I think we can because it is not a technical decision, but a strategic one about not dividing workforce, and how to not have such situations occur. I think Mark (and maybe others) have made huge efforts for the new spatialite provider, that is not

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Status of transaction support in Geopackages

Hi all, Thanks all for the discussion around Geopackages, SpatiaLite, etc. Not sure if the PSC can help here? To me it seems like many people would prefer that we invest into OGR to improve the Geopackage support - right? Isn't there consensus on that already? So - it would be a matter of

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Status of transaction support in Geopackages

Hi I also think as generally policy supporting OGR is a better way to go where possible. Regards Tim > On 27 Feb 2018, at 23:29, Régis Haubourg wrote: > > Thanks Alessandro and Nyall, > that said, it means that two reviewers are probably not found of having those

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Status of transaction support in Geopackages

Thanks Alessandro and Nyall, that said, it means that two reviewers are probably not found of having those PR integrated as is. Our community is based on consensus I think, Could we raise that topic up to the PSC level? Thoughts? Régis 2018-02-27 22:05 GMT+01:00 Nyall Dawson

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Status of transaction support in Geopackages

On 28 February 2018 at 06:40, Alessandro Pasotti wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Luigi Pirelli wrote: >> >> > >> > On 27/02/2018 11:12, Mark Johnson wrote: >> that we get rid of the current provider and rely on GDAL only. >> >> >> >> With the

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Status of transaction support in Geopackages

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Luigi Pirelli wrote: > > > > On 27/02/2018 11:12, Mark Johnson wrote: > that we get rid of the current provider and rely on GDAL only. > >> > >> With the 'current provider' I assume you mean the Spatialite-Provider. > >> > >> Please

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Status of transaction support in Geopackages

> > On 27/02/2018 11:12, Mark Johnson wrote: that we get rid of the current provider and rely on GDAL only. >> >> With the 'current provider' I assume you mean the Spatialite-Provider. >> >> Please remember that the Spatialite-Provider was never designed to >> support GeoPackage. >> >> Please

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Status of transaction support in Geopackages

2018-02-27 11:12 GMT+01:00 Mark Johnson : > >> that we get rid of the current provider and rely on GDAL only. > > With the 'current provider' I assume you mean the Spatialite-Provider. > > Please remember that the Spatialite-Provider was never designed to support >

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Status of transaction support in Geopackages

Hi Mark, On 27/02/2018 11:12, Mark Johnson wrote: >>> that we get rid of the current provider and rely on GDAL only. > > With the 'current provider' I assume you mean the Spatialite-Provider. > > Please remember that the Spatialite-Provider was never designed to > support GeoPackage. > >

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Status of transaction support in Geopackages

>> that we get rid of the current provider and rely on GDAL only. With the 'current provider' I assume you mean the Spatialite-Provider. Please remember that the Spatialite-Provider was never designed to support GeoPackage. Please also remember that Gdal/Ogr does not support all aspects of

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Status of transaction support in Geopackages

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 8:06 AM, Régis Haubourg wrote: > Hi Andreas, > ok, that's clear. You are right, that feature is only for the postgreSQL > provider currently. > > I didn't see any missing requirement in SQLITE v3 - the requirement for > GPKG - maybe Matthias

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Status of transaction support in Geopackages

Hi Andreas, ok, that's clear. You are right, that feature is only for the postgreSQL provider currently. I didn't see any missing requirement in SQLITE v3 - the requirement for GPKG - maybe Matthias knows more about that. We also use GDAL provider here, so we might miss some features there and

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Status of transaction support in Geopackages

Hi Régis, Yes - I mean the "transaction group" support. Meaning that multiple layers can be edited together. Most important issue for us: ability to link related tables to newly created features without asking the user to manually save the parent table first. This all works for Postgis now,

Re: [QGIS-Developer] Status of transaction support in Geopackages

Hi Andreas, by transaction support, you mean "transaction group" support ? The one that allows to edit all the layers in one unique transaction and evaluate triggers on the fly? If not, I'm not sure to understand what is lacking currently for your use case. Nothing is planned here however.