Re: Review: listagg aggregate

2010/1/25 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> 2010/1/25 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>:
>>> xmlagg -> concatenates values to form xml datum
>>> array_agg -> concatenates values to form array datum
>>> ??? -> concatenates values to form string datum
>>>
>>> So it's pretty clear that listagg does not fit into this scheme.
>
>> when you define list as text domain, then this the name is correct.
>
> IOW, if you define away the problem then there's no problem?
>
> I agree that "list" is a terrible choice of name here.  "string_agg"
> seemed reasonable and in keeping with the standardized "array_agg".
>

I am not happy, I thing so we do bigger chaos then it is. But it
hasn't progress. So I agree with name string_agg. In this case isn't a
problem rename this function if somebody would.

I'll send patch over hour.

regards
Pavel Stehule

>                        regards, tom lane
>