From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Scott Bailey <artacus(at)comcast(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Review: listagg aggregate |
Date: | 2010-01-25 14:56:06 |
Message-ID: | 162867791001250656ga1417e1ye06174a0d473fb3d@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/1/25 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> 2010/1/25 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>:
>>> xmlagg -> concatenates values to form xml datum
>>> array_agg -> concatenates values to form array datum
>>> ??? -> concatenates values to form string datum
>>>
>>> So it's pretty clear that listagg does not fit into this scheme.
>
>> when you define list as text domain, then this the name is correct.
>
> IOW, if you define away the problem then there's no problem?
>
> I agree that "list" is a terrible choice of name here. "string_agg"
> seemed reasonable and in keeping with the standardized "array_agg".
actualised patch - the name is string_agg
regards
Pavel Stehule
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
string_agg.diff | application/octet-stream | 11.5 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-01-25 15:04:59 | Re: Review: listagg aggregate |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-01-25 14:52:45 | Re: pg_listener entries deleted under heavy NOTIFY load only on Windows |