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=e3rZqWgUUZyimMOfsWK3mnti-o0pUzP+dzW99b4FnLWw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)
List pgsql-hackers
> It would be simple enough to remove the infinity test on the "stop" and
> leave it on the "start". Or yank both. Just waiting for others to agree
> which checks should remain.

Let's yank 'em.  This is a minor issue which is distracting us from
the main point of this patch, and I don't think it's worth getting
distracted.

+1. It leaves this function consistent with the others, and if we want to add checks later we can do them all at the same time.
 

+     <row>
+      <entry><literal><function>generate_series(<parameter>start</parameter>,
<parameter>stop</parameter>, <parameter>step
integer</parameter>)</function></literal></entry>
+      <entry><type>date</type></entry>
+      <entry><type>setof date</type></entry>
+      <entry>
+       Generate a series of values, from <parameter>start</parameter>
to <parameter>stop</parameter>
+       with a step size of <parameter>step</parameter>

I think this should be followed by the word "days" and a period.


No objections. I just followed the pattern of the other generate_series() docs.
 
+       else
+               /* do when there is no more left */
+               SRF_RETURN_DONE(funcctx);

I think we should drop the "else" and unindent the next two lines.
That's the style I have seen elsewhere.  Plus less indentation equals
more happiness.

No objections here either. I just followed the pattern of generate_series() for int there.
 

I'm pretty meh about the whole idea of this function, though,
actually, and I don't see a single clear +1 vote for this
functionality upthread.  (Apologies if I've missed one.)  In the
absence of a few of those, I recommend we reject this.

Just David and Vik so far. The rest were either against(Simon), meh(Robert) or +1ed/-1ed the backpatch, leaving their thoughts on the function itself unspoken.

Happy to make the changes above if we're moving forward with it.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Joe Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: fun with "Ready for Committer" patches
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Idle In Transaction Session Timeout, revived