| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add generate_series(date, date) and generate_series(date, date, integer) |
| Date: | 2016-01-25 06:22:24 |
| Message-ID: | 5994.1453702944@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> One thing I discovered in doing this patch is that if you do a timestamp
>> generate_series involving infinity....it tries to do it. I didn't wait to
>> see if it finished.
> Well, I would think that this is a bug that we had better address and
> backpatch. It does not make much sense to use infinity for timestamps,
> but letting it run infinitely is not good either.
Meh. Where would you cut it off? AD 10000000000? A few zeroes either
way doesn't really make much difference.
If it didn't respond to SIGINT, that would be an issue, but otherwise
this doesn't seem much more exciting than any other way to create a
query that will run longer than you want to wait.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2016-01-25 06:29:46 | Re: Relation extension scalability |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-01-25 06:12:07 | Re: Add generate_series(date, date) and generate_series(date, date, integer) |