Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> writes: > On 10 April 2014 19:04, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> What about names for the invertible-aggregate infrastructure? >> I'm tempted to prefix "inv" to all the existing names, but then >> "invsfunc" means the alternate forward function ... can we use >> "invifunc" for the inverse transition function? Or maybe the >> prefix should be just "i".
> Hmm, I'm not a fan of any of those names. Perhaps "win" as a prefix to > denote a sliding window? Or just "m" for "moving aggregate". Hmm ... "moving aggregate" is actually a pretty good name for this whole feature -- better than "invertible aggregate" anyway. I can feel a global-search-and-replace coming on. So if we go with that terminology, perhaps these names for the new CREATE AGGREGATE parameters: initfunc applies to plain aggregation, mutually exclusive with initcond msfunc (or just mfunc?) forward transition for moving-agg mode mifunc inverse transition for moving-agg mode mstype state datatype for moving-agg mode msspace space estimate for mstype mfinalfunc final function for moving-agg mode minitfunc "firsttrans" for moving-agg mode minitcond mutually exclusive with minitfunc That takes us up to 16 columns in pg_aggregate, but it's still not going to be a very voluminous catalog --- there's only 171 rows there today. So I'm not particularly concerned about space, and if there's a chance of squeezing out cycles, I think we should seize it. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers