Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes: > On fre, 2011-12-23 at 19:51 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On ons, 2011-12-21 at 11:04 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: >>> this patch adds a bytea_agg aggregation.
>> Why not call it string_agg? > Here is a patch to do the renaming. As it stands, it fails the > opr_sanity regression test, because that complains that there are now > two aggregate functions string_agg with different number of arguments. > It seems to me that that test should really only complain if the common > argument types of the two aggregates are the same, correct? Uh, no. That test is there for good and sufficient reasons, as per its comment: -- Check that there are not aggregates with the same name and different -- numbers of arguments. While not technically wrong, we have a project policy -- to avoid this because it opens the door for confusion in connection with -- ORDER BY: novices frequently put the ORDER BY in the wrong place. -- See the fate of the single-argument form of string_agg() for history. The renaming you propose would only be acceptable to those who have forgotten that history. I haven't. 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