On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > "David E. Wheeler" <da...@kineticode.com> writes: >> Because it's an aggregate that cocatenates values. It's not an >> aggregate that lists things. I also like concat_agg better than >> string_agg because it's not limited to acting on strings. > > But what it *produces* is a string. For comparison, the > SQL-standard-specified array_agg produces arrays, but what it > acts on isn't an array.
This point is well-taken, but naming it string_agg() because it produces a string doesn't seem quite descriptive enough. We might someday (if we don't already) have a number of aggregates that produce an output that is a string; we can't name them all by the output type. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
