| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | 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 19:19:34 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYkUXxHmH3Zu8-k_XArr2RWwddDs3NK+0aL28hKYfhCmw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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:
>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>> > On ons, 2011-12-21 at 11:04 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> >> this patch adds a bytea_agg aggregation.
>> >>
>> >> It allow fast bytea concatetation.
>> >
>> > Why not call it string_agg? All the function names are the same between
>> > text and bytea (e.g., ||, substr, position, length). It would be nice
>> > not to introduce arbitrary differences.
>>
>> 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.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-12-23 19:35:21 | Re: patch: bytea_agg |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-12-23 19:16:11 | Re: patch: bytea_agg |