| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Aggregate ORDER BY patch |
| Date: | 2009-11-13 15:44:25 |
| Message-ID: | 1258127065.4818.0.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On fre, 2009-11-13 at 10:01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > On fre, 2009-11-13 at 03:16 +0000, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> >> Caveat: as discussed earlier, this patch changes the behaviour of
> >> array_agg(DISTINCT x) when applied to NULL inputs. Formerly, the NULLs
> >> were unconditionally skipped; now, they are treated just like DISTINCT
> >> or GROUP BY normally do.
>
> > The right answer to that should be in the SQL standard.
>
> It's not. The standard defines the behavior of certain specific
> aggregates; it doesn't provide general rules that would apply to
> user-defined aggregates.
But array_agg is in the standard.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-11-13 15:44:55 | Re: Aggregate ORDER BY patch |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-11-13 15:35:08 | Re: Aggregate ORDER BY patch |