On Tuesday, January 16, 2024, Maiquel Grassi <gra...@hotmail.com.br> wrote:
> However, initially, I have one more obstacle in your feedback. If I use > count(*) over() - row_number() over(), it gives me an offset of one unit. > To resolve this, I need to add 1. > > > This way, simulating a reverse row_number() becomes even more laborious. > > > I don’t really understand why you think this reverse inserted counting is > even a good idea so I don’t really care how laborious it is to implement > with existing off-the-shelf tools. A window function named “descending” is > non-standard and seemingly non-sensical and should not be added. You can > specify order by in the over clause and that is what you should be doing. > Mortgage payments are usually monthly, so order by date. > > David J. > > --//-- > > We are just raising hypotheses and discussing healthy possibilities here. > This is a suggestion for knowledge and community growth. Note that this is > not about a new "feature patch. > > That is not how your initial post here came across. It seemed quite concrete in goal and use case motivating that goal. > I am asking for the community's opinion in general. Your responses are > largely appearing aggressive and depreciative. Kindly request you to be > more welcoming in your answers and not oppressive. This way, the community > progresses more rapidly.. > > The people in this community are quite capable and willing to write a contrary opinion to mine. Not sure how to make “this new proposed function shouldn’t be added to core”, and trying to explain why not, non-oppressive. I can add “thank you for taking the time to try and improve PostgreSQL” in front to soften the blow of rejection but I tend to just get to the point. David J.
