Re: patch: bytea_agg

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On lr, 2012-04-07 at 10:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm. So are you now suggesting we should get rid of one-argument
>> bytea_agg and replace it with two-argument string_agg(bytea,bytea)?
>> I could support that, since we've not released bytea_agg yet.

> Yes, that looks like the best solution. Here is a patch for that.

Looks sane in a quick once-over, except for the documentation entry.
I'm not really thrilled with "text, text or bytea, bytea" because it
seems easy to misparse. Moreover, as written the entry claims that
the return type is text either way, which is wrong. You could fix
the latter by writing "same as argument data type", but I wonder
whether it'd be better to make separate table entries for the two
forms.

regards, tom lane