On 11/21/12 3:16 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > One open question regarding this feature is whether this should return > NULL or '[]' for 0 rows. Currently it returns NULL but I could be > convinced to return '[]', and the change would be very small.
Although my intuition would be [], the existing concatenation-like aggregates return null for no input rows, so this probably ought to be consistent with those. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
