Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On lör, 2012-04-07 at 10:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm. So are you now suggesting we should get rid of one-argument
>> bytea_agg and replace it with two-argument string_agg(bytea,bytea)?
>> I could support that, since we've not released bytea_agg yet.
> Yes, that lo
On lör, 2012-04-07 at 10:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Nevertheless, the problem would now be that adding string_agg(bytea)
> > would effectively forbid adding string_agg(bytea, delim) in the
> future.
> > So making a two-argument string_agg(bytea, bytea) now seems like the
> > best solution anyway
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On ons, 2012-04-04 at 18:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Uh, no. That test is there for good and sufficient reasons, as per its
>> comment:
> I had reviewed that thread very carefully, but I'm not sure it applies.
> The issue was that we don't want aggregates with optiona
On ons, 2012-04-04 at 18:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >> 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 arg
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> The renaming you propose would only be acceptable to those who have
> forgotten that history. I haven't.
I had. I looked it up
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2010-08/msg00044.php
That was quite a thread.
--
greg
--
Sent via pgsql
Peter Eisentraut 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_san
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.
> >
> > It allow fast bytea concatetation.
>
> Why not call it string_agg? All the function names are the same between
> text and byte
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Well, because it doesn't operate on strings.
>
> I argued when we added string_agg that it ought to be called
> concat_agg, or something like that, but I got shouted down. So now
> here we are.
+1. Using the input type names to name the fun
Excerpts from Pavel Stehule's message of vie dic 23 18:36:11 -0300 2011:
> Hello
>
> 2011/12/23 Tom Lane :
> > 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 t
Pavel Stehule wrote:
> maybe we can introduce a synonym type for bytea - like "binary
> string" or "bstring".
The standard mentions these names for binary strings:
BINARY, BINARY VARYING, or BINARY LARGE OBJECT
which have a certain symmetry with:
CHARACTER, CHARACTER VARYING, and CHARACT
Hello
2011/12/23 Tom Lane :
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Peter Eisentraut 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
>>> docu
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Peter Eisentraut 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 unimp
Robert Haas wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Peter Eisentraut 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
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On fre, 2011-12-23 at 13:30 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> > On ons, 2011-12-21 at 11:04 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> >> this patch adds a bytea_agg aggregation.
>> >>
>> >> It
On fre, 2011-12-23 at 13:30 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Peter Eisentraut 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_ag
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Peter Eisentraut 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.
Hello
2011/12/23 Peter Eisentraut :
> 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, positi
Hello
2011/12/23 Peter Eisentraut :
> 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, positi
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 introduc
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 5:04 AM, Pavel Stehule
> wrote:
>> this patch adds a bytea_agg aggregation.
>>
>> It allow fast bytea concatetation.
>
> Looks fine to me. I'll commit this, barring objections.
Committed.
--
Robert Haas
Enterprise
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 5:04 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> this patch adds a bytea_agg aggregation.
>
> It allow fast bytea concatetation.
Looks fine to me. I'll commit this, barring objections.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent v
Hello
this patch adds a bytea_agg aggregation.
It allow fast bytea concatetation.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
*** ./doc/src/sgml/func.sgml.orig 2011-12-07 11:04:33.0 +0100
--- ./doc/src/sgml/func.sgml 2011-12-21 11:00:18.255753111 +0100
***
*** 10911,10916
--- 10911,10934 ---
22 matches
Mail list logo
