Re: [HACKERS] Drop one-argument string_agg? (was Re: string_agg delimiter having no effect with order by)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Drop one-argument string_agg? (was Re: string_agg delimiter having no effect with order by)
Date: 2010-08-05 21:02:11
Message-ID: 29858.1281042131@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On tor, 2010-08-05 at 14:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Huh? The functionality proposed for removal is only that of omitting
>> an explicit delimiter argument for string_agg(). Since the default
>> value (an empty string) doesn't seem to be the right thing all that
>> often anyway, I'm not following why you think this is a significant
>> downgrade.

> I just think it's useful to have the one-argument version. I understand
> the functionality is available in other ways.

Well, other things being equal I'd have preferred to keep the
one-argument version too. But this thread has made it even clearer than
before that we will get continuing bug reports if we leave the behavior
alone. I don't think the ability to leave off the delimiter value is
worth the amount of confusion it'll cause.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2010-08-05 22:50:21 Re: Re: BUG #5602: Recovering from Hot-Standby file backup leads to the currupted indexes
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-08-05 20:57:54 Re: BUG #5595: Documentation is not installs from VPATH build.

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-08-05 21:11:41 Re: PL/pgSQL EXECUTE '..' USING with unknown
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2010-08-05 20:59:53 Re: Concurrent MERGE