"Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> It looks to me like section 34.10 of the docs might benefit from some
> sort of update in light of this patch, since the builtin array_agg now
> does the same thing as the proposed user-defined array_accum, only
> better. Presumably we should either pick a different example, or add
> a note that a builtin is available that does the same thing more
> efficiently.
I did the latter. If you can think of an equally plausible and short
example of a polymorphic aggregate, we could certainly replace the
example instead ...
regards, tom lane