On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Alastair Turner <bell(at)ctrlf5(dot)co(dot)za> wrote:
> .....
>
> Given that it potentially produces a delimited list, not a straight
> conacatenation (and that list is unacceptable since it would be
> descriptive as a noun but not as a verb) would implode_agg not be the
> most descriptive name?
>

Actually, scratch that. The other *agg functions are named for what
they produce as output. Not for their process - as per the objection
to list_agg and suggestions of conact_agg and implode_agg. string_agg
would be consistent, which is a wonderful thing if you can get it in a
naming scheme.

In response to

• Re: Review: listagg aggregate at 2010-01-26 11:23:58 from Alastair Turner

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Heikki Linnakangas	Date: 2010-01-26 11:54:30
	Subject: Re: Dividing progress/debug information in pg_standby, and stat before copy
Previous:	From: Alastair Turner	Date: 2010-01-26 11:23:58
	Subject: Re: Review: listagg aggregate