Re: array_agg and array_accum (patch)

"Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> It looks to me like section 34.10 of the docs might benefit from some
> sort of update in light of this patch, since the builtin array_agg now
> does the same thing as the proposed user-defined array_accum, only
> better.  Presumably we should either pick a different example, or add
> a note that a builtin is available that does the same thing more
> efficiently.

I did the latter.  If you can think of an equally plausible and short
example of a polymorphic aggregate, we could certainly replace the
example instead ...
        regards, tom lane