Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC "any")

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 9:26 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Thomas Munro writes: >> Would num_values be a better name than num_nonnulls? > > If "value" is a term that excludes null values, it's news to me. Ah, right, I was thinking of null as the absence

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC "any")

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: >> Pavel Stehule writes: >>> [ num_nulls_v6.patch ] > >> I started looking through this. It seems generally okay, but I'm not >> very pleased with the function name "num_notnulls". I think

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC "any")

Thomas Munro writes: > Would num_values be a better name than num_nonnulls? If "value" is a term that excludes null values, it's news to me. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC "any")

On 2016-02-05 05:06, Tom Lane wrote: I wrote: Pavel Stehule writes: [ num_nulls_v6.patch ] I started looking through this. It seems generally okay, but I'm not very pleased with the function name "num_notnulls". I think it would be better as "num_nonnulls", as I

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC "any")

Pavel Stehule writes: > [ num_nulls_v6.patch ] I started looking through this. It seems generally okay, but I'm not very pleased with the function name "num_notnulls". I think it would be better as "num_nonnulls", as I see Oleksandr suggested already.

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC "any")

I wrote: > Pavel Stehule writes: >> [ num_nulls_v6.patch ] > I started looking through this. It seems generally okay, but I'm not > very pleased with the function name "num_notnulls". I think it would > be better as "num_nonnulls", as I see Oleksandr suggested already.

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC "any")

Dne 5. 2. 2016 1:33 napsal uživatel "Tom Lane" : > > Pavel Stehule writes: > > [ num_nulls_v6.patch ] > > I started looking through this. It seems generally okay, but I'm not > very pleased with the function name "num_notnulls". I think it would > be

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC "any")

On 25/01/16 19:57, Pavel Stehule wrote: Marco is a author of this patch, so - Marco, please, send final version of this patch I don't really care about the tests. Can we not use the v5 patch already in the thread? As far as I could tell there were no reviewer's comments on it anymore.

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC "any")

2016-01-26 11:42 GMT+01:00 Marko Tiikkaja : > On 25/01/16 19:57, Pavel Stehule wrote: > >> Marco is a author of this patch, so - Marco, please, send final version of >> this patch >> > > I don't really care about the tests. Can we not use the v5 patch already > in the thread? As

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC "any")

2016-01-22 13:34 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby : > On 1/21/16 1:48 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > >> the form of regress tests is not pretty significant issue. Jim's >> design is little bit transparent, Marko's is maybe little bit >> practical. Both has sense from my

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC "any")

On 1/21/16 1:48 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: the form of regress tests is not pretty significant issue. Jim's design is little bit transparent, Marko's is maybe little bit practical. Both has sense from my opinion, and any hasn't significant advantage against other. any possible

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC "any")

Hi 2016-01-17 8:43 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule : > > > 2016-01-12 17:27 GMT+01:00 Marko Tiikkaja : > >> On 03/01/16 22:49, Jim Nasby wrote: >> >>> In the unit test, I'd personally prefer just building a table with the >>> test cases and the expected NULL/NOT

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC "any")

2016-01-12 17:27 GMT+01:00 Marko Tiikkaja : > On 03/01/16 22:49, Jim Nasby wrote: > >> In the unit test, I'd personally prefer just building a table with the >> test cases and the expected NULL/NOT NULL results, at least for all the >> calls that would fit that paradigm. That should

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC "any")

On 03/01/16 22:49, Jim Nasby wrote: In the unit test, I'd personally prefer just building a table with the test cases and the expected NULL/NOT NULL results, at least for all the calls that would fit that paradigm. That should significantly reduce the size of the test. Not a huge deal though...

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC "any")

Hi 2016-01-04 5:49 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby : > On 1/3/16 10:23 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > >> Hi >> >> 2016-01-03 22:49 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby > >: >> >> On 1/3/16 2:37 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> >> +

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC "any")

2016-01-03 21:37 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule : > Hi > > > 2015-08-12 19:18 GMT+02:00 Marko Tiikkaja : > >> Hi, >> >> I'd like to suggest $SUBJECT for inclusion in Postgres 9.6. I'm sure >> everyone would've found it useful at some point in their lives, and the

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC "any")

Hi 2015-08-12 19:18 GMT+02:00 Marko Tiikkaja : > Hi, > > I'd like to suggest $SUBJECT for inclusion in Postgres 9.6. I'm sure > everyone would've found it useful at some point in their lives, and the > fact that it can't be properly implemented in any language other than C I >

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC "any")

On 1/3/16 2:37 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: + /* num_nulls(VARIADIC NULL) is defined as NULL */ + if (PG_ARGISNULL(0)) + return false; Could you add to the comment explaining why that's the desired behavior? + /* +*

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC "any")

Hi 2016-01-03 22:49 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby : > On 1/3/16 2:37 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > >> + /* num_nulls(VARIADIC NULL) is defined as NULL */ >> + if (PG_ARGISNULL(0)) >> + return false; >> > > Could you add to the

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC "any")

On 1/3/16 10:23 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: Hi 2016-01-03 22:49 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby >: On 1/3/16 2:37 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: + /* num_nulls(VARIADIC NULL) is defined as NULL */ + if

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC "any")

On 2015-11-22 21:17, Jim Nasby wrote: On 11/22/15 11:34 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: On 2015-11-22 18:29, Jim Nasby wrote: Only if you know how many columns there already are. Or does this not work if you hand it a row? It "works" in the sense that it tells you whether the row is NULL or not.

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC "any")

On 11/22/15 11:34 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: On 2015-11-22 18:29, Jim Nasby wrote: Only if you know how many columns there already are. Or does this not work if you hand it a row? It "works" in the sense that it tells you whether the row is NULL or not. I.e. the answer will always be 0 or 1.

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC "any")

On 11/20/15 11:55 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: On 2015-11-21 06:52, Jim Nasby wrote: On 11/20/15 11:12 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: On 2015-11-21 06:02, I wrote: Here's a patch implementing this under the name num_nulls(). For January's CF, of course. I forgot to update the some references in

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC "any")

On 2015-11-22 18:29, Jim Nasby wrote: Only if you know how many columns there already are. Or does this not work if you hand it a row? It "works" in the sense that it tells you whether the row is NULL or not. I.e. the answer will always be 0 or 1. .m -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC "any")

On 2015-11-21 06:02, I wrote: Here's a patch implementing this under the name num_nulls(). For January's CF, of course. I forgot to update the some references in the documentation. Fixed in v3, attached. .m *** a/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml --- b/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml *** ***

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC "any")

On 2015-11-21 06:06, Tom Lane wrote: Marko Tiikkaja writes: Here's a patch implementing this under the name num_nulls(). For January's CF, of course. What's this do that "count(*) - count(x)" doesn't? This is sort of a lateral version of count(x); the input is a list of

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC "any")

Marko Tiikkaja writes: > Here's a patch implementing this under the name num_nulls(). For > January's CF, of course. What's this do that "count(*) - count(x)" doesn't? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC "any")

On 11/20/15 11:12 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: On 2015-11-21 06:02, I wrote: Here's a patch implementing this under the name num_nulls(). For January's CF, of course. I forgot to update the some references in the documentation. Fixed in v3, attached. I thought there was going to be a

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC "any")

Hello, Here's a patch implementing this under the name num_nulls(). For January's CF, of course. .m *** a/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml --- b/doc/src/sgml/func.sgml *** *** 182,188 !Comparison Operators comparison --- 182,188 !

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC "any")

On 2015-11-21 06:52, Jim Nasby wrote: On 11/20/15 11:12 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: On 2015-11-21 06:02, I wrote: Here's a patch implementing this under the name num_nulls(). For January's CF, of course. I forgot to update the some references in the documentation. Fixed in v3, attached. I

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC any)

2015-08-13 9:47 GMT+02:00 Shulgin, Oleksandr oleksandr.shul...@zalando.de: On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-08-13 9:21 GMT+02:00 Marko Tiikkaja ma...@joh.to: On 8/13/15 9:18 AM, Shulgin, Oleksandr wrote: nnulls() I think I'd prefer

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC any)

2015-08-13 9:21 GMT+02:00 Marko Tiikkaja ma...@joh.to: On 8/13/15 9:18 AM, Shulgin, Oleksandr wrote: nnulls() I think I'd prefer num_nulls() over that. can be what about similar twin function num_nonulls()? Pavel .m -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC any)

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-08-13 9:21 GMT+02:00 Marko Tiikkaja ma...@joh.to: On 8/13/15 9:18 AM, Shulgin, Oleksandr wrote: nnulls() I think I'd prefer num_nulls() over that. can be what about similar twin function

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC any)

On 8/13/15 9:18 AM, Shulgin, Oleksandr wrote: nnulls() I think I'd prefer num_nulls() over that. .m -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC any)

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-08-13 9:21 GMT+02:00 Marko Tiikkaja ma...@joh.to: On 8/13/15 9:18 AM, Shulgin, Oleksandr wrote: nnulls() I think I'd prefer num_nulls() over that. can be what about similar twin function

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC any)

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:19 AM, David G. Johnston david.g.johns...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com writes: On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: The name

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC any)

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com writes: On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: The name count_nulls() suggest an aggregate function to me, though. I thought the same. Ditto.

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC any)

Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com writes: On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: The name count_nulls() suggest an aggregate function to me, though. I thought the same. Ditto. I'd be fine with this if we can come up with a name that doesn't sound like

[HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC any)

Hi, I'd like to suggest $SUBJECT for inclusion in Postgres 9.6. I'm sure everyone would've found it useful at some point in their lives, and the fact that it can't be properly implemented in any language other than C I think speaks for the fact that we as a project should provide it. A

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC any)

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Marko Tiikkaja ma...@joh.to wrote: Will finish this up for the next CF, unless someone wants to tell me how stupid this idea is before that. I'm kind of puzzled what kind of schema would need this. -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC any)

Greg Stark wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Marko Tiikkaja ma...@joh.to wrote: Will finish this up for the next CF, unless someone wants to tell me how stupid this idea is before that. I'm kind of puzzled what kind of schema would need this. I've seen cases where you want some

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC any)

Hi 2015-08-12 19:18 GMT+02:00 Marko Tiikkaja ma...@joh.to: Hi, I'd like to suggest $SUBJECT for inclusion in Postgres 9.6. I'm sure everyone would've found it useful at some point in their lives, and the fact that it can't be properly implemented in any language other than C I think

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC any)

On 2015-08-12 7:23 PM, Greg Stark wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Marko Tiikkaja ma...@joh.to wrote: Will finish this up for the next CF, unless someone wants to tell me how stupid this idea is before that. I'm kind of puzzled what kind of schema would need this. The first example I

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC any)

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: The name count_nulls() suggest an aggregate function to me, though. I thought the same. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC any)

On 2015-08-12 7:35 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: maybe nulls_count ? we have regr_count already But that's an aggregate as well.. .m -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC any)

2015-08-12 19:37 GMT+02:00 Marko Tiikkaja ma...@joh.to: On 2015-08-12 7:35 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: maybe nulls_count ? we have regr_count already But that's an aggregate as well.. my mistake Pavel .m

Re: [HACKERS] count_nulls(VARIADIC any)

2015-08-12 19:32 GMT+02:00 Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com: On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: The name count_nulls() suggest an aggregate function to me, though. I thought the same. maybe nulls_count ? we have regr_count already Regards