On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> simplest could not be a best. There have to be only a const
>>> expression. But we have not possibility to check it in pg.
>> Well... that's an entirely arbitrary limitation. I admit that it
>> doesn't seem likely that someone would want to have a variable
>> delimiter, but putting extra effort and code complexity into
>> preventing it seems pointless.
> Yeah. The real issue here is that in some cases you'd like to have
> non-aggregated parameters to an aggregate, but SQL has no notation
> to express that.
> I think Pavel's underlying complaint is that if the delimiter
> argument isn't constant, then we're exposing an implementation
> dependency in terms of just which values get separated by which
> delimiters. The most practical implementation seems to be that
> the first-call delimiter isn't actually used at all, and on
> subsequent calls the delimiter *precedes* the associated value,
> which is a bit surprising given the order in which one writes
> them. Not sure if this is worth documenting though. Those two
> or three people who actually try it will figure it out soon enough.
Yeah, I'm thoroughly unworried about it.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-01-28 16:02:21|
|Subject: Re: Review: listagg aggregate|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-01-28 15:56:45|
|Subject: Re: Review: listagg aggregate |