On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 06:04:10PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On 2013-04-25 13:42:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> The argument for it seems to be that > >> array_agg(a COLLATE "C" ORDER BY b COLLATE "POSIX") > >> should not throw an error, but why not? > > > Uh. Why should it? SELECT foo COLLATE "C" FROM ... ORDER BY bar COLLATE > > "POSIX" doesn't throw one either? > > After thinking about it a bit more, this case *should* throw an error: > > string_agg(a COLLATE "C", b COLLATE "POSIX") > > but these should not: > > array_agg(a COLLATE "C" ORDER BY b COLLATE "POSIX") > > array_agg(a ORDER BY b COLLATE "C", c COLLATE "POSIX") > > that is, the ORDER BY expression(s) ought to be considered independently > rather than as part of the agg's argument list. > > It looks like the proposed patch gets this right, but the proposed > test cases really fail to illuminate the problem IMO. > > regards, tom lane
Am I understanding correctly that you want the code left alone and the test case expanded as above? Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
