<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Would that be a breaking change for any down the stream apps. Suddenly mixing multi with singles?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>That would be my main concern.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>If there is no performance benefit to allowing columns to mix multi and singles, I’d rather not as it sounds it would be both a hassle and could cause damage downstream.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> postgis-devel [mailto:postgis-devel-bounces@lists.osgeo.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Martin Davis<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, February 17, 2023 12:49 PM<br><b>To:</b> PostGIS Development Discussion <postgis-devel@lists.osgeo.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [postgis-devel] Promote Geometry to MultiGeometry on Insert<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I agree with this. It seems better to provide more appropriate constraints than to modify data. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Like it or now, we're stuck with the OGC model for the foreseeable future. But the pain points can be reduced by removing unwanted distinctions between atomic and Multi-geometries wherever possible.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 8:43 PM Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski <<a href="mailto:me@komzpa.net">me@komzpa.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><p class=MsoNormal>I believe that multigeometry constraint is instead a not well-thought constraint inherited from very legacy systems.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><br>The useful ones are "is it point/multipoint", "is it line/multiline", "is it area/multiarea". With check for the multi- being with options "no" and "could be multi, could be single". I don't like us pushing people to convert all singles to multi: this may mean that in some time we will not have tables with plain polygons anymore.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I'd say that if we implement such a change we also need to have a nice way to have "linear" or "areal" dimensionality constraint on the data that will check that data is poly/multipoly or line/multiline, so it could be recommended as replacement, with simple results being in the table, not forcing everything to be more complex.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></body></html>