Re: Re: Add generate_series(date, date) and generate_series(date, date, integer)

From: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>
To: Vik Fearing <vik(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: Add generate_series(date, date) and generate_series(date, date, integer)
Date: 2016-03-04 19:14:34
Message-ID: 56D9DE9A.7060303@pgmasters.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2/21/16 2:24 PM, Vik Fearing wrote:
> On 02/21/2016 07:56 PM, Corey Huinker wrote:
>>
>> Other than that, the only difference is the ::date part. Is it
>> really worth adding extra code just for that? I would say not.
>>
>>
>> I would argue it belongs for the sake of completeness.
>
> So would I.
>
> +1 for adding this missing function.

+1. FWIW, a sample query I wrote for a customer yesterday would have
looked nicer with this function. Here's how the generate_series looked:

generate_series('2016-03-01'::date, '2016-03-31'::date, interval '1
day')::date

But it would have been cleaner to write:

generate_series('2016-03-01'::date, '2016-03-31'::date)

More importantly, though, I don't like that the timestamp version of the
function happily takes date parameters but returns timestamps. I feel
this could lead to some subtle bugs for the unwary.

--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stas Kelvich 2016-03-04 19:26:31 Re: transam README small fix
Previous Message Robert Haas 2016-03-04 19:14:31 Re: transam README small fix