From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: string_agg delimiter having no effect with order by |
Date: | 2010-08-05 15:25:37 |
Message-ID: | 2220.1281021937@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>>> The same problem can be with custom aggregates :( so this syntax isn't
>>>> too robust.
BTW, I'm really not worried about that case. By the time someone is
advanced enough to have written their own multi-argument aggregate
definitions, they'll have absorbed the idea that the ORDER BY goes at
the end. What we need to accomplish here is just to not set traps at
the feet of novices using the feature for the first time. Which is
why I think it's sufficient to have a policy of not having built-in
aggregates that conflict in this way; I'm not proposing that we restrict
or discourage custom aggregates with optional arguments.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alex Hunsaker | 2010-08-05 15:26:47 | Re: BUG #5601: cannot create language plperl; |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-05 15:06:57 | Re: BUG #5599: Vacuum fails due to index corruption issues |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-08-05 15:29:29 | Re: GROUPING SETS revisited |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-08-05 15:21:54 | Re: Online backup cause boot failure, anyone know why? |