Re: Different behaviour of concate() and concate operator ||

From: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: amul sul <sul_amul(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)in>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Different behaviour of concate() and concate operator ||
Date: 2014-04-28 17:12:29
Message-ID: CAM-w4HOeedq7fDLkxyPHLuB3f=+dT-Azt=27krPzAf0BhPjh=Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

The missing bit of context is that concat() is there because early on
in Postgres's life there was an effort to have a full suite of Oracle
compatibility functions. If someone suggested it now they would be
pushed towards making it an extension or pointed at EDB. But things
like concat are the remnants of that.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-04-28 17:20:47 Re: includedir_internal headers are not self-contained
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2014-04-28 16:46:17 Re: Planned downtime @ Rackspace