Re: BUG #5889: "Intersects" for polygons broken

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/functions-geometry.html

I wish it explained what arguments each of the operators accepts, and
whether any automatic conversions take place (like polygon to box in
that 8.3 issue).

What happens when I call ?# or ?- on a polygon and point? Two points? Open path?

Some of these are obvious, but others not so much.

2011/3/8 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Konrad Garus <konrad(dot)garus(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> 2011/2/16 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>>> "Konrad Garus" <konrad(dot)garus(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>>> && operator seems to be broken for polygons whose bounding boxes intersect:
>>>
>>>> select polygon'((0,0), (1,2), (0,2))' && polygon'((0.5, 0), (1,0), (1,1))';
>>>>  ?column?
>>>> ----------
>>>>  t
>>>> (1 row)
>>>
>>> This is fixed as of 9.0; see the release notes at
>>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/release-9-0.html
>>> which say
>>>
>>>        Correct calculations of "overlaps" and "contains" operations for polygons (Teodor Sigaev)
>>>
>>>        The polygon && (overlaps) operator formerly just checked to see
>>>        if the two polygons' bounding boxes overlapped. It now does a
>>>        more correct check. The polygon @> and <@ (contains/contained
>>>        by) operators formerly checked to see if one polygon's vertexes
>>>        were all contained in the other; this can wrongly report "true"
>>>        for some non-convex polygons. Now they check that all line
>>>        segments of one polygon are contained in the other.
>>
>> Thank you. How about the point of more informative docs that would
>> explain supported types, automatic conversions and all such caveats
>> (also for 8.3 and 8.4)?
>
> I think a lot of these things are already documented.  Aren't they?
>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>

--
Konrad Garus