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

Re: Review: listagg aggregate

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, 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 17:36:13
Message-ID: 15473.1264527373@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> 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.

But what it *produces* is a string.  For comparison, the
SQL-standard-specified array_agg produces arrays, but what it
acts on isn't an array.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2010-01-26 17:39:19
Subject: Re: testing cvs HEAD - HS/SR - missing file
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-01-26 17:29:35
Subject: Re: ECPGset_var

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