Thomas Swan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 7/28/05, Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> How about list_append_distinct and list_concat_distinct?
>> Those names are fine with me.
> list_append_unique and list_concat_unique might be a little clearer, unless
> you want to
On 7/28/05, Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:> How about list_append_distinct and list_concat_distinct?Those names are fine with me.
list_append_unique and list_concat_unique might be a little clearer, unless you want to retain the sqlism of distinct.
Tom Lane wrote:
How about list_append_distinct and list_concat_distinct?
Those names are fine with me.
-Neil
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I agree -- the functionality itself is fine, of course, but it would be
> nice to have a better name.
Those were just the first names that came to mind, and of course the
reason I asked is that I felt they could be improved upon...
>> I was thinking eith
Gavin Sherry wrote:
list_add() doesn't really describe what it does.
I agree -- the functionality itself is fine, of course, but it would be
nice to have a better name.
I was thinking either list_cond_add() or list_merge().
What about list_append_distinct()? (And list_append_all_distinct(
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about list_push for both of these?
list_push to me would connote the functionality of lappend, ie,
unconditionally add the item to the list.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)-
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 06:01:21PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil (or anyone else with an opinion),
>
> I'm finding several uses in the planner for some new List primitives
> defined as below. I'd like to push these into list.c, but before that,
> has anyone got any serious objections? How about
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil (or anyone else with an opinion),
>
> I'm finding several uses in the planner for some new List primitives
> defined as below. I'd like to push these into list.c, but before that,
> has anyone got any serious objections? How about suggestions for bette
Neil (or anyone else with an opinion),
I'm finding several uses in the planner for some new List primitives
defined as below. I'd like to push these into list.c, but before that,
has anyone got any serious objections? How about suggestions for better
names?
regards, tom
