| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: TODO item |
| Date: | 2009-03-28 18:55:31 |
| Message-ID: | 1238266531.17035.38.camel@jdavis |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2009-03-28 at 15:35 +0000, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> >>>>> "Jeff" == Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
>
> > On Sat, 2009-03-28 at 11:57 +0000, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> >> The array_agg() does, I believe, match the standard one, at least
> >> my reading of the spec doesn't reveal any obvious issues there.
>
> Jeff> I think it's missing the ORDER BY clause.
>
> Hm, yeah, so it is.
>
> Could that be added (not for 8.4, and not necessarily just for
> array_agg but for all aggregates) by piggybacking on the existing
> DISTINCT mechanism for aggregates?
I'm sure it's possible, but it seems like a significant amount of work.
I don't feel very strongly about it myself, because, as I said, it can
be worked around using an ORDER BY in a subselect.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-03-28 19:10:12 | Re: Should SET ROLE inherit config params? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-03-28 18:36:53 | Re: Solaris getopt_long and PostgreSQL |