On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Robert Haas <robertmh...@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.
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. It's too late now though. Agreed on both points. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
