Re: [PATCH] Negative Transition Aggregate Functions (WIP)

On 12/16/2013 08:39 AM, David Rowley wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 6:00 AM, Ants Aasma <ants(dot)aasma(at)eesti(dot)ee
> <mailto:ants(dot)aasma(at)eesti(dot)ee>> wrote:
>
> On Dec 15, 2013 6:44 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
> <mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>> wrote:
> > David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com
> <mailto:dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)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