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

Re: patch: bytea_agg

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: patch: bytea_agg
Date: 2011-12-23 21:19:57
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>> On fre, 2011-12-23 at 13:30 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Well, because it doesn't operate on strings.

>> Sure, binary strings. Both the SQL standard and the PostgreSQL
>> documentation use that term.

> I'm unimpressed by that argument, but let's see what other people think.

I generally agree with Peter: string_agg makes sense here.  The only
real argument against it is Pavel's point that he didn't include a
delimiter parameter, but that just begs the question why not.  It
seems at least plausible that there would be use-cases for it.

So I think we should try to make this as much like the text case as

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-12-23 21:22:01
Subject: Re: WIP: explain analyze with 'rows' but not timing
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-12-23 20:25:57
Subject: Re: Page Checksums + Double Writes

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