On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> It's probably also worth noting that the reason I used DISTINCT >> originally is because it's already a keyword. > > True. > > It occurs to me that the pg_stats view already exposes "n_distinct" > as a column name. I wouldn't object to using "n_distinct" and > "n_distinct_inherited" or some such.
OK. So we have: 1. distinct and inherited_distinct, or 2. n_distinct and n_distinct_inherited Any other votes/thoughts/opinions/color commentary? ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers