Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>>> I suppose this confusion is only possible because string_agg has both
>>> a one-argument and a two-argument form.
>>
>> Right, or at least that's what allows the mistake to go through without
>> reporting any error.
> No, that's what lets the correct form go through without reporting any error.
Really? IMO the reason Thom had a problem was he thought he was
invoking the two-argument form of string_agg, but he was really
invoking the one-argument form.
If we were a bit earlier in the 9.0 cycle I would suggest that this
confusion is a sufficient reason to drop the one-argument form of
string_agg. It's too late now though.
regards, tom lane
