Thomas Swan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 7/28/05, Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> How about list_append_distinct and list_concat_distinct?
>> Those names are fine with me.
> list_append_unique and list_concat_unique might be a little clearer, unless
> you want to
On 7/28/05, Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:> How about list_append_distinct and list_concat_distinct?Those names are fine with me.
list_append_unique and list_concat_unique might be a little clearer, unless you want to retain the sqlism of distinct.
Tom Lane wrote:
How about list_append_distinct and list_concat_distinct?
Those names are fine with me.
-Neil
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I agree -- the functionality itself is fine, of course, but it would be
> nice to have a better name.
Those were just the first names that came to mind, and of course the
reason I asked is that I felt they could be improved upon...
>> I was thinking eith
Gavin Sherry wrote:
list_add() doesn't really describe what it does.
I agree -- the functionality itself is fine, of course, but it would be
nice to have a better name.
I was thinking either list_cond_add() or list_merge().
What about list_append_distinct()? (And list_append_all_distinct(
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about list_push for both of these?
list_push to me would connote the functionality of lappend, ie,
unconditionally add the item to the list.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)-
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 06:01:21PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil (or anyone else with an opinion),
>
> I'm finding several uses in the planner for some new List primitives
> defined as below. I'd like to push these into list.c, but before that,
> has anyone got any serious objections? How about
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil (or anyone else with an opinion),
>
> I'm finding several uses in the planner for some new List primitives
> defined as below. I'd like to push these into list.c, but before that,
> has anyone got any serious objections? How about suggestions for bette
