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.
:Stefan 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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
