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

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?

Regards

David Rowley

--
Ants Aasma

-- 
Hannu Krosing
PostgreSQL Consultant
Performance, Scalability and High Availability
2ndQuadrant Nordic OÜ