| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(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: | 2010-08-05 01:05:14 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikWGuZ_sbqGne8jdHRY_dZMM=YMu4-Dvtcy-HFd@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> What we are doing here, IMO, is not just changing string_agg() but
> instituting a project policy that we are not going to offer built-in
> aggregates with the same names and different numbers of arguments ---
> otherwise the problem will come right back.
Well I think this can be a pretty soft policy. The thing is that for
string_agg it's a pretty weak argument for the one-argument form
anyways so there's not much loss in losing the 1-argument form. In
other cases the extra arguments might be for very obscure cases or
there may be lots of precedent for the variadic form and users might
expect to have it. In which case we could decide the cost/benefit
calculation comes down the other way.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2010-08-05 01:35:12 | Re: BUG #5599: Vacuum fails due to index corruption issues |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-08-04 23:19:01 | Re: [HACKERS] Drop one-argument string_agg? (was Re: string_agg delimiter having no effect with order by) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-08-05 01:27:16 | Re: more numeric stuff |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2010-08-05 00:50:53 | Re: review: psql: edit function, show function commands patch |