I wrote:
Well, I forgot that an aggregate involves more than one catalog row ;-).
So it's a bit bigger patch than that, but still pretty small and safe.
See attached.
Applied to HEAD and 9.0. The mistaken case will now yield this:
regression=# select string_agg(f1 order by f1, ',') from
On ons, 2010-08-04 at 18:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
This policy also implies that we are never going to allow default
arguments for aggregates, or at least never have any built-in ones
that use such a feature.
By my count the following people had offered an opinion on making
this change:
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
I vote against this patch. There are plenty of other places that SQL is
confusing, and this move seems excessive to me, and I find the
functionality that is proposed for removal quite useful.
Huh? The functionality proposed for removal is only that of
On Aug 5, 2010, at 11:25 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Applied to HEAD and 9.0. The mistaken case will now yield this:
regression=# select string_agg(f1 order by f1, ',') from text_tbl;
ERROR: function string_agg(text) does not exist
LINE 1: select string_agg(f1 order by f1, ',') from text_tbl;
On 5 August 2010 19:39, David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com wrote:
On Aug 5, 2010, at 11:25 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Applied to HEAD and 9.0. The mistaken case will now yield this:
regression=# select string_agg(f1 order by f1, ',') from text_tbl;
ERROR: function string_agg(text) does not
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 12:25, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
regression=# select string_agg(f1 order by f1, ',') from text_tbl;
ERROR: function string_agg(text) does not exist
LINE 1: select string_agg(f1 order by f1, ',') from text_tbl;
^
HINT: No function matches the
David E. Wheeler da...@kineticode.com writes:
On Aug 5, 2010, at 11:25 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Applied to HEAD and 9.0. The mistaken case will now yield this:
regression=# select string_agg(f1 order by f1, ',') from text_tbl;
ERROR: function string_agg(text) does not exist
I'm confused: that
On Aug 5, 2010, at 11:42 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
LINE 1: select string_agg(f1 order by f1, ',') from text_tbl;
^
I'm confused: that looks like the two-argument form to me. Have I missed
something?
HINT: No function matches the given name and argument types. You might
On Aug 5, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm confused: that looks like the two-argument form to me. Have I missed
something?
Yeah, the whole point of the thread: that's not a call of a two-argument
aggregate. It's a call of a one-argument aggregate, using a two-column
sort key to
Well, maybe we need to expend some more sweat on the error message then.
But this patch was still a prerequisite thing, because without it there
is no error that we can complain about.
Yes, I'd say an addition to the HINT is in order *assuming* at that
stage we can tell if the user passed an
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
Well, maybe we need to expend some more sweat on the error message then.
But this patch was still a prerequisite thing, because without it there
is no error that we can complain about.
Yes, I'd say an addition to the HINT is in order *assuming* at that
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
Well, maybe we need to expend some more sweat on the error message then.
But this patch was still a prerequisite thing, because without it there
is no error that we can complain about.
On Aug 5, 2010, at 12:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
HINT: No aggregate function matches the given name and argument
types. Perhaps you misplaced ORDER BY; ORDER BY must appear after all
regular arguments of the aggregate.
+1
David
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Next question: exactly how should the variant HINT be phrased?
I'm inclined to drop the bit about explicit casts and make it read
something like
HINT: No aggregate function matches
On 8/5/10 12:18 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
Could we arrange to emit this error message only when there is an
aggregate with the same name but different arguments?
Personally, I don't see this as really necessary. Just mentioning ORDER
BY in the hint will be enough to give people the right place to
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
On 8/5/10 12:18 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
Could we arrange to emit this error message only when there is an
aggregate with the same name but different arguments?
Personally, I don't see this as really necessary. Just mentioning ORDER
BY in the hint will be
On tor, 2010-08-05 at 14:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Huh? The functionality proposed for removal is only that of omitting
an explicit delimiter argument for string_agg(). Since the default
value (an empty string) doesn't seem to be the right thing all that
often anyway, I'm not following why
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On tor, 2010-08-05 at 14:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Huh? The functionality proposed for removal is only that of omitting
an explicit delimiter argument for string_agg(). Since the default
value (an empty string) doesn't seem to be the right thing all
Alex Hunsaker bada...@gmail.com writes:
Either way, I don't have strong feelings on this other than if we dont
fix it now when will we?
Well, we won't. If 9.0 ships with both forms of string_agg, we're stuck
with it IMO. It's not exactly a bug, so I won't cry if that's how
things go; but it
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Alex Hunsaker bada...@gmail.com wrote:
I think forcing an initdb might be more trouble than this wart is worth.
+1. I would not make this change unless we have to force an initdb
anyway. And I really hope we don't,
Well, it'd take an initdb to get rid of it. In the past we've avoided
forcing initdb post-beta1 unless it was Really Necessary. OTOH, we seem
to be in the mode of encouraging beta testers to test pg_upgrade, so
maybe that concern isn't worth much at the moment.
If it's causing bugs, drop
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
If it's causing bugs, drop it now. If we include it in 9.0, we're stuck
with it for years.
Well, it's causing bug reports, which is not exactly the same thing as bugs.
But yeah, I'm thinking we should get rid of it.
regards, tom
04.Ağu.2010 tarihinde 22:44 saatinde, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com
şunları yazdı:
I'm OK with forcing an initDB for RC1.
I think beta5 will be a better choice than RC 1 here.
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
PostgreSQL DBA @ Akinon/Markafoni, Red Hat Certified Engineer
devrim~gunduz.org,
I wrote:
Hm? I don't think that an initdb here would have any impact on whether
we can call the next drop RC1 or not. We're talking about removing a
single built-in entry in pg_proc --- it's one of the safest changes we
could possibly make.
Well, I forgot that an aggregate involves more
On 4 August 2010 23:19, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I wrote:
Hm? I don't think that an initdb here would have any impact on whether
we can call the next drop RC1 or not. We're talking about removing a
single built-in entry in pg_proc --- it's one of the safest changes we
could
Thom Brown t...@linux.com writes:
I was afraid that the function would be pulled completely, but from
looking at the patch, you're only removing the function with a
single-parameter signature, which is quite innocuous.
Yes, of course, sorry if I confused anyone. It's the combination of
having
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 06:19:49PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
Hm? I don't think that an initdb here would have any impact on whether
we can call the next drop RC1 or not. We're talking about removing a
single built-in entry in pg_proc --- it's one of the safest changes we
could
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 16:33, Thom Brown t...@linux.com wrote:
I was afraid that the function would be pulled completely, but from
looking at the patch, you're only removing the function with a
single-parameter signature, which is quite innocuous. So I'm for
now.
Ahh, Now I see why you were
Alex Hunsaker bada...@gmail.com writes:
I dunno about anyone else but (a, ',' order by a) just looks weird.
I suppose, but aren't you just focusing on the argument being constant?
In the more general case I don't think there's anything unnatural about
this syntax.
Or in other words, any
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Or in other words, any thoughts on:
select string_agg(delim, expression);
That looks pretty weird to me anyway, with or without use of ORDER BY.
Nobody would think to write the delimiter first. Usually you put the
most
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 17:07, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Alex Hunsaker bada...@gmail.com writes:
I dunno about anyone else but (a, ',' order by a) just looks weird.
I suppose, but aren't you just focusing on the argument being constant?
Yes.
Or in other words, any thoughts on:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
for: tgl, josh, badalex, mmoncure
against: rhaas, thom
Anybody else want to vote, or change their vote after seeing the patch?
If we're not regarding this as beta-forcing, I abstain.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB:
32 matches
Mail list logo
