| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2010-01-26 18:38:37 |
| Message-ID: | 16676.1264531117@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> But what it *produces* is a string. For comparison, the
>> SQL-standard-specified array_agg produces arrays, but what it
>> acts on isn't an array.
> This point is well-taken, but naming it string_agg() because it
> produces a string doesn't seem quite descriptive enough. We might
> someday (if we don't already) have a number of aggregates that produce
> an output that is a string; we can't name them all by the output type.
True, but the same point could be made against array_agg, and that
didn't stop the committee from choosing that name. As long as
string_agg is the "most obvious" aggregate-to-string functionality,
which ISTM it is, I think it's all right for it to have pride of place
in naming.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2010-01-26 18:43:38 | Re: Patch: libpq new connect function (PQconnectParams) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-01-26 18:35:08 | unfathomable comment in psqlscan.l |