Re: patch: bytea_agg

On lör, 2012-04-07 at 10:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Nevertheless, the problem would now be that adding string_agg(bytea)
> > would effectively forbid adding string_agg(bytea, delim) in the
> future.
> > So making a two-argument string_agg(bytea, bytea) now seems like the
> > best solution anyway.  (This applies independently of the function
> > renaming, actually.)
> 
> Hm.  So are you now suggesting we should get rid of one-argument
> bytea_agg and replace it with two-argument string_agg(bytea,bytea)?
> I could support that, since we've not released bytea_agg yet.

Yes, that looks like the best solution.  Here is a patch for that.