>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> Andrew Gierth <and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk> writes: >> Now the question: If the limit of one argument for DISTINCT aggs were >> removed (which I'm considering doing as part of an update to the >> aggregate ORDER BY patch I posted a while back), what should be the >> behaviour of agg(distinct x,y) where one or both of x or y is null? >> And should it depend on the strictness of the transition function? Tom> I think you could probably just change it: make DISTINCT work as Tom> per regular DISTINCT (treat null like a value, keep one copy). Tom> All the spec-conforming aggregates are strict and would ignore Tom> the null in the next step anyway. Change it for single-arg DISTINCT too? And the resulting change to the established behaviour of array_agg is acceptable? Just want to be clear here. -- Andrew. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
