Hello 2011/12/23 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: >>> On fre, 2011-12-23 at 13:30 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >>>> 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 generally agree with Peter: string_agg makes sense here. The only > real argument against it is Pavel's point that he didn't include a > delimiter parameter, but that just begs the question why not. It > seems at least plausible that there would be use-cases for it.
I don't know a real usage for bytea delimiter. Probably there is, but I expect so most often use case will be without delimiter. And when it is necessary, then || should be used. I see two ways: a) use it bytea_agg as it now b) use a string_agg with delimiter, that will be usually empty. Using a string_agg for bytea is not too intuitive (but has sense) - maybe we can introduce a synonym type for bytea - like "binary string" or "bstring". Regards Pavel > > So I think we should try to make this as much like the text case as > possible. > > 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
