| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: patch: bytea_agg |
| Date: | 2011-12-23 18:25:07 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRA2opXkC=hOmYoP31i-aRGRPc3qd2LyP0U+h+yKBi6wUg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello
2011/12/23 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>:
> 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.
My opinion is not strong. I don't think so using string_agg is good
name (- as minimal (and only one) reason is different API - there is
no support for delimiter. If I remember well discussion about
string_agg, where delimiter is not optimal, there is request for
immutable interface for aggregates - there was a issue with ORDER
clause. So bytea_agg is good name.
Regards
Pavel
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-12-23 18:30:26 | Re: patch: bytea_agg |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2011-12-23 18:23:13 | Re: patch: bytea_agg |