Re: Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Corey Huinker
Subject Re: Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)
Date
Msg-id CADkLM=c7GYcviSMACYvu6v2arKB0yAEMuCWs0cyUVWv3f38hRA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)
List pgsql-hackers

If it didn't respond to SIGINT, that would be an issue, but otherwise
this doesn't seem much more exciting than any other way to create a
query that will run longer than you want to wait.

                        regards, tom lane

It responded to SIGINT, so yeah, meh.

I can see value in aligning the behavior of infinity queries between date and timestamp, but I have no strong opinion about which behavior is better: it's either set step = 0 or an ereport(), no biggie if we want to handle the condition, I rip out the DATE_NOT_FINITE() checks.

Incidentally, is there a reason behind the tendency of internal functions to avoid parameter defaults in favor of multiple pg_proc entries? I copied the existing behavior of the int4 generate_series, but having one entry with the defaults seemed more self-documenting.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dilip Kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: Relation extension scalability
Next
From: Jeff Janes
Date:
Subject: Re: GIN pending list clean up exposure to SQL