From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: string_agg delimiter having no effect with order by |
Date: | 2010-08-04 18:06:14 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTi=72CgNQj6ivEnNpschicv+Aks+Lx8uemgDfkEG@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>>> I suppose this confusion is only possible because string_agg has both
>>>> a one-argument and a two-argument form.
>>>
>>> Right, or at least that's what allows the mistake to go through without
>>> reporting any error.
>
>> No, that's what lets the correct form go through without reporting any error.
>
> Really? IMO the reason Thom had a problem was he thought he was
> invoking the two-argument form of string_agg, but he was really
> invoking the one-argument form.
I had my head tilted a slightly different way, but, yes.
> If we were a bit earlier in the 9.0 cycle I would suggest that this
> confusion is a sufficient reason to drop the one-argument form of
> string_agg. It's too late now though.
Agreed on both points.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alex Hunsaker | 2010-08-04 18:55:47 | Re: string_agg delimiter having no effect with order by |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-04 17:06:27 | Re: BUG #5598: Compatibility modes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | subham | 2010-08-04 18:28:10 | Needs Suggestion |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2010-08-04 17:56:16 | Re: patch for contrib/isn |