Re: string_agg delimiter having no effect with order by

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 15:31:10
Message-ID: AANLkTindCsN40_GAFpKkZLqEfzWB9fU58WHgh+GMMvA5@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

2010/8/5 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> 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.
>

+1

but still when we remove one parametric string_agg, then this issue
will not be documented.

Pavel

>                        regards, tom lane
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thom Brown 2010-08-05 15:40:58 Re: string_agg delimiter having no effect with order by
Previous Message Alex Hunsaker 2010-08-05 15:26:47 Re: BUG #5601: cannot create language plperl;

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2010-08-05 15:35:08 Re: MERGE Specification
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2010-08-05 15:29:29 Re: GROUPING SETS revisited