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

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)
Date: 2016-03-17 17:17:44
Message-ID: CA+TgmobCu-tQzyqehaQbZmzHsKoMaK2jOrn29+g3DatSXtDogQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> One idea that might be worth considering is to define the function
> as generate_series(date,date,interval) returns timestamp (without
> time zone). The point here would be only to move the behavior for
> date inputs as far as getting timestamp without tz rather than
> timestamp with tz; which would at least save some timezone rotations
> in typical use, as well as rather debatable semantics. (The fact
> that timestamptz is the preferred type in this hierarchy isn't
> really doing us any favors here.)

That's a fairly tenuous benefit, though, and a substantially different
patch. I think it's time to give up here and move on. We can revisit
this for another release after we've had more time to think about it,
if that seems like a smart thing to do when the time comes.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Teodor Sigaev 2016-03-17 17:19:55 Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes
Previous Message Robert Haas 2016-03-17 17:15:43 Re: Using quicksort for every external sort run