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: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
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 13:57:10
Message-ID: 19808.1264427830@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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".

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2010-01-25 14:12:37
Subject: Re: Review: listagg aggregate
Previous:From: Greg StarkDate: 2010-01-25 13:56:53
Subject: Fwd: Questions about connection clean-up and "invalid page header"

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