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 possibly make. > > 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. > > What we are doing here, IMO, is not just changing string_agg() but > instituting a project policy that we are not going to offer built-in > aggregates with the same names and different numbers of arguments --- > otherwise the problem will come right back. Therefore, the attached > patch adds an opr_sanity regression test that will complain if anyone > tries to add such. Of course, this isn't preventing users from creating > such aggregates, but it's on their own heads to not get confused if they > do. > > 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: > for: tgl, josh, badalex, mmoncure > against: rhaas, thom > Anybody else want to vote, or change their vote after seeing the patch?
+1 for removing the single-argument version. 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-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
