| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(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 18:15:15 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f071001261015g3b5433b0rae899762c2ca4469@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
>> Because it's an aggregate that cocatenates values. It's not an
>> aggregate that lists things. I also like concat_agg better than
>> string_agg because it's not limited to acting on strings.
>
> But what it *produces* is a string. For comparison, the
> SQL-standard-specified array_agg produces arrays, but what it
> acts on isn't an array.
This point is well-taken, but naming it string_agg() because it
produces a string doesn't seem quite descriptive enough. We might
someday (if we don't already) have a number of aggregates that produce
an output that is a string; we can't name them all by the output type.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2010-01-26 18:20:26 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove tabs in SGML. |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2010-01-26 18:14:47 | Re: Review: listagg aggregate |