On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 04:22:27PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Added to TODO: > > * Add missing operators for geometric data types > > Some geometric types do not have the full suite of geometric > operators, > e.g. box @> point >
I've started looking at this, and ISTM that at least part of this could be solved by allowing some implicit casts. Given that the geometry data types are point, line, lseg, box, path, polygon, circle, I think the following should be safe: box -> polygon lseg -> open path polygon -> closed path I would argue that this is similar to int2 -> int4 -> int8: a box is a type of polygon, a polygon is a closed path (that doesn't intersect, which needs to be added to the docs, btw), and a line segment is an open path. Is there any reason not to make these casts implicit? If there is, what's the best way to go about adding operators for cases where equivalent operators exist? (IE: @>(box,point) doesn't exist, but @>(polygon,point) does, and should suffice for @>(box,point) with appropriate casting) Actually, looking at one example (@(point,box) vs @(point,poly)), part of the reason is that it's far simpler to deal with a box than a generic polygon. -- Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq