Re: WIP json generation enhancements

From: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WIP json generation enhancements
Date: 2012-12-05 17:01:27
Message-ID: DADB64AB-2BE1-4FEC-9F58-92737F058AA2@justatheory.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Nov 26, 2012, at 11:12 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:

> Although my intuition would be [], the existing concatenation-like
> aggregates return null for no input rows, so this probably ought to be
> consistent with those.

This annoys me at times, but I wrap such calls in COALESCE() and forget about it. So I agree to keep it consistent with other array-returning aggregate functions.

Best,

David

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2012-12-05 17:08:01 Re: PITR potentially broken in 9.2
Previous Message Tom Lane 2012-12-05 16:40:16 Re: PITR potentially broken in 9.2