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

Re: array_agg and array_accum (patch)

From: Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: array_agg and array_accum (patch)
Date: 2008-10-31 12:19:54
Message-ID: 20081031121954.GG2459@frubble.xen.chris-lamb.co.uk (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:19:15PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> If there are potential problems with the standard
> (where we don't want to implement a violation), we should just do
> array_accum(). If not, we might as well do the standard array_agg(),
> perhaps without the ORDER BY clause.

I've wanted an array_sort() function before; having this functionality
as a separate function also seems considerably prettier than some ad
hoc grammar, it also generalizes nicely to cases where the array isn't
coming from an aggregate.


  Sam

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2008-10-31 12:37:28
Subject: Distinct types
Previous:From: Zdenek KotalaDate: 2008-10-31 12:14:37
Subject: Re: PG_PAGE_LAYOUT_VERSION 5 - time for change

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