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

Re: patch: bytea_agg

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: patch: bytea_agg
Date: 2011-12-23 19:35:21
Message-ID: 4EF4839902000025000440B5@gw.wicourts.gov (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>>>> On ons, 2011-12-21 at 11:04 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>>>> this patch adds a bytea_agg aggregation.
>>>>>
>>>>> It allow fast bytea concatetation.
>>>>
>>>> Why not call it string_agg?  All the function names are the
>>>> same between text and bytea (e.g., ||, substr, position,
>>>> length).  It would be nice not to introduce arbitrary
>>>> differences.
>>>
>>> Well, because it doesn't operate on strings.
>>
>> Sure, binary strings.  Both the SQL standard and the PostgreSQL
>> documentation use that term.
> 
> I'm unimpressed by that argument, but let's see what other people
> think.
 
I, for one, try to be consistent about saying "character strings"
when that is what I mean.  Since at least the SQL-92 standard there
have been both "character strings" and "bit strings", with a certain
amount of symmetry in how they are handled.   I don't remember when
binary strings were introduced, but that is the standard
terminology.  There is, for example, a standard substring function
for binary strings.
 
-Kevin

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2011-12-23 19:54:23
Subject: Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-12-23 19:19:34
Subject: Re: patch: bytea_agg

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