| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com |
| Cc: | sqllist <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: List Concatination |
| Date: | 2001-03-15 17:02:37 |
| Message-ID: | 14171.984675757@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>> Note that this is probably not a good idea - the ordering of the
>> contacts will not be well-defined. When I asked about this Tom Lane was
>> quite surprised that it worked, so no guarantees about long-term
>> suitability.
> Hmmm ... this feature is very, very, useful now that I know how to use
> it. I'd love to see it hang around for future versions of PgSQL. Tom?
As I said before, user-defined aggregates are certainly not going away.
I don't recall the conversation Richard was thinking of, so I'm not sure
exactly what was at issue there. Most likely it was some fine point,
not the basic existence of the feature.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gerald Gutierrez | 2001-03-15 19:42:21 | VACUUM kills Index Scans ?! |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-03-15 16:35:28 | Re: Some questions about PLpgSql |