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

Re: Review: listagg aggregate

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Scott Bailey <artacus(at)comcast(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Review: listagg aggregate
Date: 2010-01-26 16:03:57
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 2010/1/25 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:27 PM, David E. Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> wrote:
>>> concat_agg().
>> I like that one...

> why is concat_agg better than listagg ?

It isn't ... it's the wrong part of speech.  "concat"enate is a verb,
whereas the other functions we would like it to be named parallel to
are using nouns there.

(Yes, I know "array" can be used as a verb, but I don't think anyone
reads it that way in "array_agg"...)

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2010-01-26 16:15:36
Subject: Re: Review: listagg aggregate
Previous:From: David E. WheelerDate: 2010-01-26 15:24:09
Subject: Re: Review: listagg aggregate

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group