| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Drop one-argument string_agg? (was Re: string_agg delimiter having no effect with order by) |
| Date: | 2010-08-04 22:41:39 |
| Message-ID: | 16409.1280961699@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> writes:
> I was afraid that the function would be pulled completely, but from
> looking at the patch, you're only removing the function with a
> single-parameter signature, which is quite innocuous.
Yes, of course, sorry if I confused anyone. It's the combination of
having both one- and two-argument forms that is the problem. Since
the one-argument form isn't doing anything but offering a rather
useless default, we won't lose functionality if we pull it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2010-08-04 22:49:43 | Re: [HACKERS] Drop one-argument string_agg? (was Re: string_agg delimiter having no effect with order by) |
| Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2010-08-04 22:33:51 | Re: [HACKERS] Drop one-argument string_agg? (was Re: string_agg delimiter having no effect with order by) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2010-08-04 22:43:56 | Two different methods of sneaking non-immutable data into an index |
| Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2010-08-04 22:33:51 | Re: [HACKERS] Drop one-argument string_agg? (was Re: string_agg delimiter having no effect with order by) |