| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Document aggregate functions better w.r.t. ORDER BY |
| Date: | 2023-10-26 22:44:14 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwb3_r5E_6aVb6Nr4_P-HX29GYfwRJjWCjPibp7xfJLtFA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 3:36 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> No sneaking. ;-) It would be bad to document this unevenly because it
> sets expectations in other parts of the system if we don't mention it.
>
Agreed.
Last suggestion, remove the first jsonb_agg example that lacks an order by.
+WITH vals (k, v) AS ( VALUES ('key0','1'), ('key1','3'), ('key1','2') )
+SELECT jsonb_object_agg(k, v) FROM vals;
+ jsonb_object_agg
+----------------------------
+ {"key0": "1", "key1": "2"}
+
We shouldn't write an example that relies on the rows being evaluated 1-2-3
without specifying an order by clause.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2023-10-26 22:48:26 | Re: Does UCS_BASIC have the right CTYPE? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2023-10-26 22:36:25 | Re: Document aggregate functions better w.r.t. ORDER BY |