On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@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
