Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> 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. True, but the same point could be made against array_agg, and that didn't stop the committee from choosing that name. As long as string_agg is the "most obvious" aggregate-to-string functionality, which ISTM it is, I think it's all right for it to have pride of place in naming. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers