From: | Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(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 22:57:25 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTinV3VachETZN4Kr1GGUDcVFzEJaEcGO0a=c1cD1@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 16:33, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> 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. So I'm "for"
> now.
Ahh, Now I see why you were worried about people calling you a witch :)
On another note, I do wonder if we could avoid more confusion by just
reordering the arguments. In-fact I bet the original argument
ordering was done precisely so it would match the 1 argument version.
I dunno about anyone else but (a, ',' order by a) just looks weird.
Or in other words, any thoughts on:
select string_agg(delim, expression);
I don't want to stretch this out, but while we are making changes...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-04 23:07:40 | Re: [HACKERS] Drop one-argument string_agg? (was Re: string_agg delimiter having no effect with order by) |
Previous 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) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-04 23:00:15 | Re: Two different methods of sneaking non-immutable data into an index |
Previous 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) |