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

Re: TODO item

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
Cc: Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: TODO item
Date: 2009-03-28 18:55:31
Message-ID: 1238266531.17035.38.camel@jdavis (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sat, 2009-03-28 at 15:35 +0000, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> >>>>> "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?

I'm sure it's possible, but it seems like a significant amount of work.
I don't feel very strongly about it myself, because, as I said, it can
be worked around using an ORDER BY in a subselect.

	Jeff Davis

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2009-03-28 19:10:12
Subject: Re: Should SET ROLE inherit config params?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-03-28 18:36:53
Subject: Re: Solaris getopt_long and PostgreSQL

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