Re: Review: listagg aggregate
От | Pavel Stehule |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Review: listagg aggregate |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 162867791001250612l5b14c644s391a5ca55272db6e@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Review: listagg aggregate (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Review: listagg aggregate
|
Список | 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 >
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: