On Sat, 2009-03-28 at 15:35 +0000, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> >>>>> "Jeff" == Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> > On Sat, 2009-03-28 at 11:57 +0000, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> >> The array_agg() does, I believe, match the standard one, at least
> >> my reading of the spec doesn't reveal any obvious issues there.
> Jeff> I think it's missing the ORDER BY clause.
> Hm, yeah, so it is.
> Could that be added (not for 8.4, and not necessarily just for
> array_agg but for all aggregates) by piggybacking on the existing
> DISTINCT mechanism for aggregates?
I'm sure it's possible, but it seems like a significant amount of work.
I don't feel very strongly about it myself, because, as I said, it can
be worked around using an ORDER BY in a subselect.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2009-03-28 19:10:12|
|Subject: Re: Should SET ROLE inherit config params?|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-03-28 18:36:53|
|Subject: Re: Solaris getopt_long and PostgreSQL |