Re: Document aggregate functions better w.r.t. ORDER BY

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Document aggregate functions better w.r.t. ORDER BY
Date: 2023-10-26 23:03:03
Message-ID: ZTrwJxA7GWMzXXpg@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 03:44:14PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 3:36 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
> No sneaking.  ;-)  It would be bad to document this unevenly because it
> sets expectations in other parts of the system if we don't mention it.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
> Last suggestion, remove the first jsonb_agg example that lacks an order by.
>
> +WITH vals (k, v) AS ( VALUES ('key0','1'), ('key1','3'), ('key1','2') )
> +SELECT jsonb_object_agg(k, v) FROM vals;
> +      jsonb_object_agg
> +----------------------------
> + {"key0": "1", "key1": "2"}
> +
>
> We shouldn't write an example that relies on the rows being evaluated 1-2-3
> without specifying an order by clause.

Sure, done in the attached patch.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com

Only you can decide what is important to you.

Attachment Content-Type Size
agg_order.diff text/x-diff 6.0 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David G. Johnston 2023-10-26 23:05:12 Re: Document aggregate functions better w.r.t. ORDER BY
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2023-10-26 23:01:38 Re: Document parameter count limit