| From: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(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>, 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 16:12:08 |
| Message-ID: | CADkLM=efKiQUg9NQCgOGnJ12_U8T1GpeExeA1NQ2Ke7DjcWbUA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)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.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2016-03-17 16:38:05 | Re: Improve error handling in pltcl |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2016-03-17 16:05:21 | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing |