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

Re: patch: bytea_agg

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: 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 19:19:34
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYkUXxHmH3Zu8-k_XArr2RWwddDs3NK+0aL28hKYfhCmw@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On fre, 2011-12-23 at 13:30 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:51 PM, 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.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2011-12-23 19:35:21
Subject: Re: patch: bytea_agg
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2011-12-23 19:16:11
Subject: Re: patch: bytea_agg

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