On 10 April 2014 19:54, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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 >
Yeah, those work for me. I think I prefer "mfunc" to "msfunc", but perhaps that's just my natural aversion to the "ms" prefix :-) Also, perhaps "minvfunc" rather than "mifunc" because "i" by itself could mean "initial". Regards, Dean -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
