Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> I suppose this confusion is only possible because string_agg has both
>>> a one-argument and a two-argument form.
>> Right, or at least that's what allows the mistake to go through without
>> reporting any error.
> No, that's what lets the correct form go through without reporting any error.
Really? IMO the reason Thom had a problem was he thought he was
invoking the two-argument form of string_agg, but he was really
invoking the one-argument form.
If we were a bit earlier in the 9.0 cycle I would suggest that this
confusion is a sufficient reason to drop the one-argument form of
string_agg. It's too late now though.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Jan Otto||Date: 2010-08-04 17:32:58|
|Subject: patch for contrib/isn|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-08-04 16:55:22|
|Subject: Re: reducing NUMERIC size for 9.1 |
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-08-04 17:06:27|
|Subject: Re: BUG #5598: Compatibility modes |
|Previous:||From: Alex Hunsaker||Date: 2010-08-04 16:51:44|
|Subject: Re: BUG #5598: Compatibility modes|