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

In response to

• Re: Comments on Exclusion Constraints and related datatypes at 2010-03-22 15:42:39 from Simon Riggs

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Andrew Dunstan	Date: 2010-03-22 16:02:23
	Subject: Re: Comments on Exclusion Constraints and related datatypes
Previous:	From: David Fetter	Date: 2010-03-22 16:00:28
	Subject: Re: Comments on Exclusion Constraints and related datatypes