Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Review: listagg aggregate

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Scott Bailey <artacus(at)comcast(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Review: listagg aggregate
Date: 2010-01-26 12:03:25
Message-ID: 1264507405.14033.8.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On tis, 2010-01-26 at 03:08 -0800, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2010, at 23:14, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>  
> wrote:
> 
> > why is concat_agg better than listagg ?
> 
> Because it's an aggregate that cocatenates values. It's not an  
> aggregate that lists things. I also like concat_agg better than  
> string_agg because it's not limited to acting on strings.

What else can it act on?


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Michael MeskesDate: 2010-01-26 12:12:05
Subject: ECPGset_var
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2010-01-26 11:54:30
Subject: Re: Dividing progress/debug information in pg_standby, and stat before copy

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group