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

Re: TODO item

From: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: TODO item
Date: 2009-03-28 15:35:01
Message-ID: 87vdptd5ju.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
>>>>> "Jeff" == Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:

 > On Sat, 2009-03-28 at 11:57 +0000, Andrew Gierth wrote:
 >> The array_agg() does, I believe, match the standard one, at least
 >> my reading of the spec doesn't reveal any obvious issues there.

 Jeff> I think it's missing the ORDER BY clause.

Hm, yeah, so it is.

Could that be added (not for 8.4, and not necessarily just for
array_agg but for all aggregates) by piggybacking on the existing
DISTINCT mechanism for aggregates?

-- 
Andrew.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew GierthDate: 2009-03-28 15:45:58
Subject: Re: TODO item
Previous:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2009-03-28 15:18:20
Subject: Re: TODO item

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