On 12/16/2013 08:39 AM, David Rowley wrote: > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 6:00 AM, Ants Aasma <ants.aa...@eesti.ee > <mailto:ants.aa...@eesti.ee>> wrote: > > On Dec 15, 2013 6:44 PM, "Tom Lane" <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us > <mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote: > > David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com > <mailto: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, inverse good :) > > Regards > > David Rowley > > -- > Ants Aasma > >
-- Hannu Krosing PostgreSQL Consultant Performance, Scalability and High Availability 2ndQuadrant Nordic OÜ
