On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 08:39:33PM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 6:00 AM, Ants Aasma <ants.aasma@eesti.ee> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 15, 2013 6:44 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > > David Rowley <dgrowleyml@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 for inverse.
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate