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

[Björn Harrtell]

Even though I spent quite a bit of effort on implementing this stuff and
I'm sure I can fix the crashers I agree with the arguments to remove it.
That is, 1GB limit is really bad and better to use GDAL which has a well
maintained impl of it.

If there was a way to stream in and out binary with custom encoding and no
size limit (i.e COPY with custom/ext binary format) it could make sense but
I don't think that is going to happen any time soon.

Oh well, it was fun. Some of it. 😂

PS. ST_AsGeobuf should be deprecated/removed too - it's even less useful
IMHO.

PS2. I do still believe in FlatGeobuf and it is used in production. ;)

/Björn

Den ons 24 nov. 2021 22:26Bruce Rindahl <bruce.rindahl at gmail.com> skrev:

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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-users/attachments/20211124/d6e941da/attachment.html>