On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
>> Because it's an aggregate that cocatenates values. It's not an
>> aggregate that lists things. I also like concat_agg better than
>> string_agg because it's not limited to acting on strings.
> But what it *produces* is a string. For comparison, the
> SQL-standard-specified array_agg produces arrays, but what it
> acts on isn't an array.
This point is well-taken, but naming it string_agg() because it
produces a string doesn't seem quite descriptive enough. We might
someday (if we don't already) have a number of aggregates that produce
an output that is a string; we can't name them all by the output type.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: David Fetter||Date: 2010-01-26 18:20:26|
|Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove tabs in SGML.|
|Previous:||From: David E. Wheeler||Date: 2010-01-26 18:14:47|
|Subject: Re: Review: listagg aggregate|