On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> writes: >> Is there any reason why array functions need the type prefix when >> other type conversion functions don't? Why didn't we name unnest() >> array_unnest()? > > UNNEST() is in the standard, IIRC, so you'd have to ask the SQL > committee that. (And no, they're not exactly being consistent either, > see array_agg() for example.) > > But anyway, my point here is that these functions are close enough to > the existing string_to_array/array_to_string functions that they should > be presented as variants of those, not arbitrarily assigned unrelated > new names. Whether we'd have chosen different names if we had it to do > over is academic.
I don't array_agg is the same case, because you're aggregating into an array, not from one. all the same, +1 to your names (didn't like explode much). merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
