2010/8/4 Kevin Grittner <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov>: > Alex Hunsaker <bada...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:04, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> If we were a bit earlier in the 9.0 cycle I would suggest that >>> this confusion is a sufficient reason to drop the one-argument >>> form of string_agg. It's too late now though. >>
The same problem can be with custom aggregates :( so this syntax isn't too robust. We can support Oracle's syntax in future releases, where syntax divide aggregate call and ORDER BY clause. >> FWIW I think we can still change it. Isn't this type of issue >> part of what beta is for? If we were in RC that would be a >> different story > > I like to think I'm pretty serious about controlling scope creep to > prevent a release dragging out, but this one seems like beta testing > uncovered a flaw in new code for the release. In my book, that > makes it fair game to balance the risk of breaking things by > changing it now against the problems we'll have long term if we > leave it alone. I'm not sure if that was the basis of saying it was > too late, or some other consideration. It is just removing some from one perspective problematic code. This doesn't add any feature - so it cannot be a precedents. we can look on this situation from two views: a) it is good, because we can document this feature/behave - without one param aggregates people will repeat same situation with custom aggregates- and this will not be documented. b) it is bad, because lot of users will be confused. I prefer @a Regards Pavel > > -Kevin > > -- > Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs > -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
