| From: | "Shulgin, Oleksandr" <oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: count_nulls(VARIADIC "any") |
| Date: | 2015-08-13 07:47:09 |
| Message-ID: | CACACo5TAE4WX3=pMFXOxofa4QtSrnpXz_EROH822n+YbZU6Naw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
>
>
> 2015-08-13 9:21 GMT+02:00 Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>:
>
>> On 8/13/15 9:18 AM, Shulgin, Oleksandr wrote:
>>
>>> nnulls()
>>>
>>
>> I think I'd prefer num_nulls() over that.
>>
>
> can be
>
> what about similar twin function num_nonulls()?
>
Yes. But I'm can't see any precedent for naming it like num_*... And if
anything, should it be num_nonnulls() then?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2015-08-13 08:01:53 | Re: count_nulls(VARIADIC "any") |
| Previous Message | Atri Sharma | 2015-08-13 07:28:56 | Re: count_nulls(VARIADIC "any") |