| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: New pgbench functions are misnamed |
| Date: | 2016-05-04 22:14:38 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa2fOWPdyeFahKbsi8e2hmHWpW=zM-eAF_x6qj-Q36CVA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I noticed that commit 7e137f846 added functions named max() and min()
> to pgbench's expression syntax. Unfortunately, these functions have
> zilch to do with what max() and min() do in SQL. They're actually more
> like the greatest() and least() server-side functions.
>
> While I can't imagine that we'd ever want to implement true aggregates
> in pgbench expressions, it still seems like this is a recipe for
> confusion. Shouldn't we rename these to greatest() and least()?
Yeah, that's probably a good idea.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-05-04 22:22:27 | Re: what to revert |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-05-04 22:11:25 | Re: pg9.6 segfault using simple query (related to use fk for join estimates) |