Re: Parallel Aggregates for string_agg and array_agg

David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 27 March 2018 at 13:26, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>> synchronized_seqscans is another piece of precedent in the area, FWIW.

> This is true. I guess the order of aggregation could be made more
> certain if we remove the cost based optimiser completely, and just
> rely on a syntax based optimiser.

None of this is responding to my point.  I think the number of people
who actually don't care about aggregation order for these aggregates
is negligible, and none of you have argued against that; you've instead
selected straw men to attack.

            regards, tom lane