Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: >> Robert Haas wrote: >>> Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: >>>> On ons, 2011-12-21 at 11:04 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: >>>>> this patch adds a bytea_agg aggregation. >>>>> >>>>> It allow fast bytea concatetation. >>>> >>>> Why not call it string_agg? All the function names are the >>>> same between text and bytea (e.g., ||, substr, position, >>>> length). It would be nice not to introduce arbitrary >>>> differences. >>> >>> Well, because it doesn't operate on strings. >> >> Sure, binary strings. Both the SQL standard and the PostgreSQL >> documentation use that term. > > I'm unimpressed by that argument, but let's see what other people > think. I, for one, try to be consistent about saying "character strings" when that is what I mean. Since at least the SQL-92 standard there have been both "character strings" and "bit strings", with a certain amount of symmetry in how they are handled. I don't remember when binary strings were introduced, but that is the standard terminology. There is, for example, a standard substring function for binary strings. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
