Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 3:01 PM Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 5:43 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Oh --- looks like numeric generate_series() already throws error for >>> this, so we should just make the timestamp variants do the same.
it now feels to me like maybe this change was a mistake. Perhaps instead of the committed change, we ought to go the other way and rip out the infinity checks in numeric generate_series().
The infinite-upper-bound-withlimit-pushdown counterexample makes sense, but seems like we're using generate_series() only because we lack a function that generates a series of N elements, without a specified upper bound, something like
And if we did that, I'd lobby that we have one that takes dates as well as one that takes timestamps, because that was my reason for starting the thread above.
