On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> writes: > On 3/17/16 11:30 AM, David G. Johnston wrote: >> I'd call it "generate_dates(...)" and be done with it. >> We would then have: >> generate_series() >> generate_subscripts() >> generate_dates()
> To me this completely negates the idea of this "just working" which is > why it got a +1 from me in the first place. If I have to remember to > use a different function name then I'd prefer to just cast on the > timestamp version of generate_series().
Yeah, this point greatly weakens the desirability of this function IMO. I've also gone from "don't care" to "-1".
regards, tom lane
Since that diminishes the already moderate support for this patch, I'll withdraw it.
