Hi Regina,
Just a quick note to say thanks for this. I've been swamped with other
things so I haven't been able to revisit this but I will shortly.
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 8:38 PM, Regina Obe wrote:
> Aaron,
>
> This works fine for me.
>
> I'm also assuming you are using geometry and not geogr
Yes not yet released. We did this primarily so people can pg_upgrade coming
from 9.6 and lower to PostgreSQL 10.
Please release 2.4.0 though. Users will be very disappointed if they have to
settle for 2.3 on 10.
See:
https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/2017-September/0
Hi Regina,
It seems that Postgis community has patched 2.3 to work with PG 10. Is that
correct?
-- Ahsan
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Regina Obe wrote:
> Ahsan,
>
>
>
> We are closing out final things. We'll release a beta end of this week
> and we expect to release mid September.
>
>
>
I simplified the example a bit, removing ST_ExteriorRing():
WITH polys AS (
SELECT ST_GeomFromText('LINESTRING(1 1, 3 2, 3 0, 1 1)') geom
UNION ALL
SELECT ST_GeomFromText('LINESTRING(2 1, 4 2, 4 0, 2 1)') geom
), extrings AS (
SELECT 1 test, geom
FROM polys
UNION ALL
SELECT 2 test, ST_Union(
Hi,
Is it normal that ST_Polygonize() gives two different results depending on if
the linestrings are ST_Union() before calling it or not?
In the following example, test 1 (no union) and 3 (ST_Collect) give the same
result, constructing two overlapping polygons. Test 2 (ST_Union) on the other
