New Window Function: ROW_NUMBER_DESC() OVER() ?

On Tuesday, January 16, 2024, Maiquel Grassi <grassi(at)hotmail(dot)com(dot)br> wrote:

> However, initially, I have one more obstacle in your feedback. If I use
> count(*) over() - row_number() over(), it gives me an offset of one unit.
> To resolve this, I need to add 1.
>
>
> This way, simulating a reverse row_number() becomes even more laborious.
>
>
> I don’t really understand why you think this reverse inserted counting is
> even a good idea so I don’t really care how laborious it is to implement
> with existing off-the-shelf tools. A window function named “descending” is
> non-standard and seemingly non-sensical and should not be added. You can
> specify order by in the over clause and that is what you should be doing.
> Mortgage payments are usually monthly, so order by date.
>
> David J.
>
> --//--
>
> We are just raising hypotheses and discussing healthy possibilities here.
> This is a suggestion for knowledge and community growth. Note that this is
> not about a new "feature patch.
>
>
That is not how your initial post here came across. It seemed quite
concrete in goal and use case motivating that goal.

> I am asking for the community's opinion in general. Your responses are
> largely appearing aggressive and depreciative. Kindly request you to be
> more welcoming in your answers and not oppressive. This way, the community
> progresses more rapidly..
>
>
The people in this community are quite capable and willing to write a
contrary opinion to mine. Not sure how to make “this new proposed function
shouldn’t be added to core”, and trying to explain why not,
non-oppressive. I can add “thank you for taking the time to try and
improve PostgreSQL” in front to soften the blow of rejection but I tend to
just get to the point.

David J.