| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-01-25 14:12:37 | Re: Review: listagg aggregate |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2010-01-25 13:56:53 | Fwd: Questions about connection clean-up and "invalid page header" |