> 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.
