On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 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 e=
rror.
>
> Really? =A0IMO 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.
I had my head tilted a slightly different way, but, yes.
> 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. =A0It's too late now though.
Agreed on both points.
--=20
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
