Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.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
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
