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

Re: Review: listagg aggregate

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Scott Bailey" <artacus(at)comcast(dot)net>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Review: listagg aggregate
Date: 2010-01-26 16:15:36
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> why is concat_agg better than listagg ?
> It isn't ... it's the wrong part of speech.  "concat"enate is a
> verb,
Concatenation is a noun.  "concat" doesn't get far enough to

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Leonardo FDate: 2010-01-26 16:56:38
Subject: Re: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-01-26 16:03:57
Subject: Re: Review: listagg aggregate

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group