Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 07/09/14 21:09, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2014-09-07 15:05:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I think the main remaining issue is that we don't have consensus on
>>> the function name AFAICT. I'm okay with using width_bucket(), as
>>> is done in the latest patch, but there were objections ...
>> Just reread that part of the thread and personally I disliked all the
>> other suggested names more than width_bucket.
> Same here, that's why I didn't change it.
Not hearing any further discussion, I committed it with that name
(and a bit of further cleanup).
regards, tom lane