| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Comments on Exclusion Constraints and related datatypes |
| Date: | 2010-03-22 16:01:52 |
| Message-ID: | 4BA74E20020000250003005A@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Yes, for most people touching != overlap. So it just looks like a
> bug.
A quick search of the web turned up a definition of overlap in
geometry as meaning that two polygons share at least one *internal*
point, which would be consistent with your interpretation; but there
is the issue of breaking existing code. Perhaps people are now
accustomed to following the existing overlaps test with a test that
the area of intersection is non-zero?
Anyway, based on what I found, we should document the current
behavior, as the term in PostgreSQL doesn't seem to match the
conventional definition in geometry.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-03-22 16:02:23 | Re: Comments on Exclusion Constraints and related datatypes |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2010-03-22 16:00:28 | Re: Comments on Exclusion Constraints and related datatypes |