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

Re: Review: listagg aggregate

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: 2010-01-27 22:09:14
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> 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.
> True, but the same point could be made against array_agg, and that
> didn't stop the committee from choosing that name.  As long as
> string_agg is the "most obvious" aggregate-to-string functionality,
> which ISTM it is, I think it's all right for it to have pride of place
> in naming.

Maybe so, but personally, I'd still prefer something more descriptive.


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: David FetterDate: 2010-01-27 22:10:01
Subject: Re: make everything target
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-01-27 21:58:35
Subject: Re: [BUG?] strange behavior in ALTER TABLE ... RENAME TO on inherited columns

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