I commented on that issue (4374) and explained my view on that topic again.
Do you think the plugin way would be easier (knowing that it is not necessarily
faster)? It seems to me that the implementation into the postgres data provider
of QGIS might have a undefined time horizon.
I could really use that feature and have entry-level python experience and
never developed a QGIS plugin.
Are there more people out there who would welcome that change?
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Qgis-user] Handling of PostGIS TopoGeometry layers
Local Time: 28. Juli 2016 1:33 PM
UTC Time: 28. Juli 2016 11:33
From: s...@kbt.io
To: ande...@protonmail.com
CC: qgis-user@lists.osgeo.org
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 02:47:39AM -0400, AW wrote:
> 100% agreed, Sandro.
>
> I did a quick search in the QGIS hub for the mentioned issue, but couldn't
> find it for now.
I found this one, for allowing the specification of a "bbox" column
to use for filtering:
http://hub.qgis.org/issues/9516
And this, to allow keyword substitution:
http://hub.qgis.org/issues/4374
I guess the latter would deprecate the former.
Your comments on the ticket(s) would be welcome.
> Is there anybody who can comment on the complexity of such a change?
> Would such a change in the PostGIS provider - despite the positive effects on
> the handling of topologies - be even wanted?
Well, I would want it :)
> I am not experienced with creating QGIS Plugins... could that be a feasible
> quick option in case a change of the provider is not a thing which would be
> quickly implemented?
I guess a plugin could effectively change the query associated with
a layer so to filter by current bbox against an arbitrary column,
but I'm not sure what would be "quicker"...
--strk;
_______________________________________________
Qgis-user mailing list
Qgis-user@lists.osgeo.org
List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user
Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user
