On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 08:39:33PM +1300, David Rowley wrote: > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 6:00 AM, Ants Aasma <ants.aa...@eesti.ee> wrote: > > > On Dec 15, 2013 6:44 PM, "Tom Lane" <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> writes: > > > > I've attached an updated patch which includes some documentation. > > > > I've also added support for negfunc in CREATE AGGREGATE. Hopefully > > that's > > > > an ok name for the option, but if anyone has any better ideas please > > let > > > > them be known. > > > > > > I'd be a bit inclined to build the terminology around "reverse" instead > > of > > > "negative" --- the latter seems a bit too arithmetic-centric. But that's > > > just MHO. > > > > To contribute to the bike shedding, inverse is often used in similar > > contexts. > > > I guess it's not really bike shedding, most of the work I hope is done, so > I might as well try to get the docs polished up and we'd need a consensus > on what we're going to call them before I can get that done. > > I like both of these better than negative transition function and I agree > negative implies arithmetic rather than opposite. > Out of these 2 I do think inverse fits better than reverse, so I guess that > would make it "inverse aggregate transition function". > Would that make the CREATE AGGREGATE option be INVFUNC ? > > Any other ideas or +1's for any of the existing ones?
+1 for inverse. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
