On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Regardless of where this function ends up, the concat_ws documentation > should contain some mention of the fact that "ws" is intended to mean > "with separator",
big +1 on that -- I've been loosely following the thread and I had assumed 'ws' meant 'wide string' all this time :-). > Come to think of it, have we checked that the behavior of LEFT, RIGHT, > REVERSE, etc. is the same on other DBs, especially as far as nulls, > empty strings, too-large or negative subscripts, etc is concerned? Probably 'standard' behavior wrt null would be to be strict; return null if any argument is null. The proposed behavior seems ok though. > CONCAT('foo', NULL) => 'foo' really the behavior that everyone else > implements here? And why does CONCAT() take a variadic "ANY" > argument? Shouldn't that be variadic TEXT? What does that accomplish, besides forcing you to sprinkle every concat call with text casts (maybe that's not a bad thing?)? merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers