| From: | Alastair Turner <bell(at)ctrlf5(dot)co(dot)za> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Review: listagg aggregate |
| Date: | 2010-01-26 11:44:34 |
| Message-ID: | 24e589521001260344t48fd8f9bp1b569092aef76849@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Alastair Turner <bell(at)ctrlf5(dot)co(dot)za> wrote:
> .....
>
> Given that it potentially produces a delimited list, not a straight
> conacatenation (and that list is unacceptable since it would be
> descriptive as a noun but not as a verb) would implode_agg not be the
> most descriptive name?
>
Actually, scratch that. The other *agg functions are named for what
they produce as output. Not for their process - as per the objection
to list_agg and suggestions of conact_agg and implode_agg. string_agg
would be consistent, which is a wonderful thing if you can get it in a
naming scheme.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-01-26 11:54:30 | Re: Dividing progress/debug information in pg_standby, and stat before copy |
| Previous Message | Alastair Turner | 2010-01-26 11:23:58 | Re: Review: listagg aggregate |