Reference and comments for types

[mloskot]

I think that the  PostGIS Reference could be completed with section called Types listing all data types defined by PostGIS and providing a short overview about it.

Similarly as it is for functions. Actually, it would be naturally as the functions work on data :-)

Next, these sections can feed comments (#35) so PostGIS types are nicely explained by PostgreSQL as it is done for native types

test=# \dT point
              List of data types
   Schema   | Name  |       Description        
------------+-------+--------------------------
 pg_catalog | point | geometric point '(x, y)'
(1 row)

but PostGIS types do not include description:

test=# \dT geometry
       List of data types
 Schema |   Name   | Description 
--------+----------+-------------
 public | geometry | 
(1 row)

I have attached a basic patch that presents the idea behind this proposal.

[mloskot]

Patch completing doc/reference.xml with section called Types

[robe]

applied and ammended at r4886 - r4887

I put it here --  http://www.postgis.org/documentation/manual-1.5SVN/reference.html#PostGIS_Types

I think the most important thing about the types is the casting behavior what is automatic and what's not. That is where people get bitten and lost. Will fill that in later.

[mloskot]

Regina,

This is great! Thank you!

[kneufeld]

Reopened - The geometry_dump datatype is missing. It would be nice if it was fully explained and referenced by the ST_Dump* functions

[robe]

Good catch. I was also thinking along the lines of referenced by that we should have an alphabetical index for each type that gives the list of functions that outputs or takes as input that type. We have that for geography already.

 http://www.postgis.org/documentation/manual-1.5SVN/geography.html

You think that would bloat the docs too much - probably add another 4 pages or so? I think an alphabetical listing would be nice for geometry for example because sometimes I forget how we categorize a function and just want an alpha listing. If all think its a good idea I can put that in and then have each type reference this respective alphabetical listing like we have for geography type already.