From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: string_agg delimiter having no effect with order by |
Date: | 2010-08-05 04:18:42 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTins8yLjaRnwrYizROQ296DGELqnKWxXwbOo3cFZ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
2010/8/4 Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>:
> Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:04, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> If we were a bit earlier in the 9.0 cycle I would suggest that
>>> this confusion is a sufficient reason to drop the one-argument
>>> form of string_agg. It's too late now though.
>>
The same problem can be with custom aggregates :( so this syntax isn't
too robust. We can support Oracle's syntax in future releases, where
syntax divide aggregate call and ORDER BY clause.
>> FWIW I think we can still change it. Isn't this type of issue
>> part of what beta is for? If we were in RC that would be a
>> different story
>
> I like to think I'm pretty serious about controlling scope creep to
> prevent a release dragging out, but this one seems like beta testing
> uncovered a flaw in new code for the release. In my book, that
> makes it fair game to balance the risk of breaking things by
> changing it now against the problems we'll have long term if we
> leave it alone. I'm not sure if that was the basis of saying it was
> too late, or some other consideration.
It is just removing some from one perspective problematic code. This
doesn't add any feature - so it cannot be a precedents.
we can look on this situation from two views:
a) it is good, because we can document this feature/behave - without
one param aggregates people will repeat same situation with custom
aggregates- and this will not be documented.
b) it is bad, because lot of users will be confused.
I prefer @a
Regards
Pavel
>
> -Kevin
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rene Novotny | 2010-08-05 06:13:08 | BUG #5601: cannot create language plperl; |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-05 03:31:17 | Re: BUG #5595: Documentation is not installs from VPATH build. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-08-05 04:21:18 | Re: GROUPING SETS revisited |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2010-08-05 03:46:07 | Re: Two different methods of sneaking non-immutable data into an index |