2010/8/5 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> The same problem can be with custom aggregates :( so this syntax isn't >>>>> too robust. > > BTW, I'm really not worried about that case. By the time someone is > advanced enough to have written their own multi-argument aggregate > definitions, they'll have absorbed the idea that the ORDER BY goes at > the end. What we need to accomplish here is just to not set traps at > the feet of novices using the feature for the first time. Which is > why I think it's sufficient to have a policy of not having built-in > aggregates that conflict in this way; I'm not proposing that we restrict > or discourage custom aggregates with optional arguments. >
+1 but still when we remove one parametric string_agg, then this issue will not be documented. Pavel > regards, tom lane > -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
