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

Re: Review: listagg aggregate

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: 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: 2010-01-25 14:56:06
Message-ID: 162867791001250656ga1417e1ye06174a0d473fb3d@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
2010/1/25 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> 2010/1/25 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>:
>>> xmlagg -> concatenates values to form xml datum
>>> array_agg -> concatenates values to form array datum
>>> ??? -> concatenates values to form string datum
>>>
>>> So it's pretty clear that listagg does not fit into this scheme.
>
>> when you define list as text domain, then this the name is correct.
>
> IOW, if you define away the problem then there's no problem?
>
> I agree that "list" is a terrible choice of name here.  "string_agg"
> seemed reasonable and in keeping with the standardized "array_agg".

actualised patch - the name is string_agg

regards
Pavel Stehule

>
>                        regards, tom lane
>

Attachment: string_agg.diff
Description: application/octet-stream (11.5 KB)

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2010-01-25 15:04:59
Subject: Re: Review: listagg aggregate
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2010-01-25 14:52:45
Subject: Re: pg_listener entries deleted under heavy NOTIFY load only on Windows

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