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

On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 6:00 AM, Ants Aasma <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> wrote:
> > David Rowley <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?

Regards

David Rowley

> --
> Ants Aasma
>