On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> FWIW, speaking as somebody who has no need of this function, "array_xor" is >> a pretty clear name that indicates what's going to happen. > > +1 on this -- was going to suggest until you beat me to it. I also > for the record really think the array_ prefix on array handling > functions is pretty silly since we support overloading -- greatly > prefer unnest() to array_unnest() etc. So, how about xor()?
Makes sense, in light of your comment about overloading. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
