[postgis-devel] [postgis-users] PSC Vote: Keep or drop Flatgeobuf in PostGIS 3.2.0

[Bruce Rindahl]

FWIW I say remove it and seriously think about not including it at all.
Looks like you can use the format right now via ogr_fdw using GDAL.

On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 12:51 PM Regina Obe <lr at pcorp.us> wrote:

> FWIW it’s already in GDAL since 3.1 and yah GDAL is a better home since it
> doesn’t have the  1GB PostgreSQL limitation
>
>
>
> https://gdal.org/drivers/vector/flatgeobuf.html
>
>
>
> Also here are OpenLayers and Leaflet examples for those not familiar with
> the format
>
>
>
> OpenLayers: https://flatgeobuf.org/examples/openlayers/
>
>
>
>
>
> Leaflet: https://flatgeobuf.org/examples/leaflet/
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Regina
>
>
>
> *From:* postgis-users [mailto:postgis-users-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Darafei "Kom?pa" Praliaskouski
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 24, 2021 3:27 PM
> *To:* PostGIS Development Discussion <postgis-devel at lists.osgeo.org>
> *Cc:* PostGIS Users Discussion <postgis-users at lists.osgeo.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [postgis-users] [postgis-devel] PSC Vote: Keep or drop
> Flatgeobuf in PostGIS 3.2.0
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I have not seen flatgeobuf in the wild, and I believe it can be safely
> removed.
>
>
>
> The current implementation is impaired by Postgres' life choices of 1GB
> limit and thus not usable for any data, just size-limited subset. ogr2ogr
> seems like a better suited place for it to reside.
>
>
>
> I'm -0 on adding flatgeobuf to core, and -1 on releasing with known
> crashers. This would converge to "remove if nobody can fix crashers".
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 11:10 PM Regina Obe <lr at pcorp.us> wrote:
>
> This is a PSC vote, but we would like some feedback on this from packagers
> and users as such comments will sway our vote.
>
> We have two blockers that center around the new FlatGeoBuf format.
>
> https://trac.osgeo.org/postgis/ticket/5005  (this one is easily
> replicatable)
>
> https://trac.osgeo.org/postgis/ticket/5014 (this one I can only replicate
> with the cowbuilder setup Bas Cowenberg provided)
>
> both I think are manifestations of the same problem how the header is
> derived and what it's doing with numeric and geometry fields.
>
> I've taken a stab at troubleshooting and fixing, but did not have much
> luck.
> That said, if anyone is willing to help fix that would be great and fix
> within a 1 to 2 week time period.
>
> If not I feel that we really need to take it out of our PostGIS 3.2.0
> release (which will be going on to 3.2.0beta2).
>
> I'd like to release PostGIS 3.2.0beta2 in about a week or so with
> flatgeobuf
> fixed or removed.  If removed, we'll  push flatgeobuf to PostGIS 3.3.0
> cycle.
>
> Thanks,
> Regina
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-devel mailing list
> postgis-devel at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-devel mailing list
> postgis-devel at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/attachments/20211124/87de2284/attachment-0001.html>