Re: Review: listagg aggregate - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: Review: listagg aggregate
Date
Msg-id 162867791001250612l5b14c644s391a5ca55272db6e@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Review: listagg aggregate  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Review: listagg aggregate  ("David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
2010/1/25 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
>> 2010/1/25 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>:
>>> xmlagg -> concatenates values to form xml datum
>>> array_agg -> concatenates values to form array datum
>>> ??? -> concatenates values to form string datum
>>>
>>> So it's pretty clear that listagg does not fit into this scheme.
>
>> when you define list as text domain, then this the name is correct.
>
> IOW, if you define away the problem then there's no problem?
>
> I agree that "list" is a terrible choice of name here.  "string_agg"
> seemed reasonable and in keeping with the standardized "array_agg".
>

I am not happy, I thing so we do bigger chaos then it is. But it
hasn't progress. So I agree with name string_agg. In this case isn't a
problem rename this function if somebody would.

I'll send patch over hour.

regards
Pavel Stehule

>                        regards, tom lane
>


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Fwd: Questions about connection clean-up and "invalid page header"
Next
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: pgsql: In HS, Startup process sets SIGALRM when waiting for buffer pin.