On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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.
Maybe so, but personally, I'd still prefer something more descriptive. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
