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

From: Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)
Date: 2016-03-10 18:24:14
Message-ID: CADkLM=dnrU6DUATepHq0kbTSkGG3awhJH+cTkDsyAff=1bnshg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

removed leftover development comment

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>> > On 10 March 2016 at 06:53, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Alvaro Herrera
>> >> <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> >> > Robert Haas wrote:
>> >> >> I'm pretty meh about the whole idea of this function, though,
>> >> >> actually, and I don't see a single clear +1 vote for this
>> >> >> functionality upthread. (Apologies if I've missed one.) In the
>> >> >> absence of a few of those, I recommend we reject this.
>> >> >
>> >> > +1
>> >>
>> >> I'm meh for this patch.
>> >
>> >
>> > "meh" == +1
>> >
>> > I thought it meant -1
>>
>> In my case it meant, like, -0.5. I don't really like adding lots of
>> utility functions like this to the default install, because I'm not
>> sure how widely they get used and it gradually increases the size of
>> the code, system catalogs, etc. But I also don't want to block
>> genuinely useful things. So basically, I'm not excited about this
>> patch, but I don't want to fight about it either.
>>
>> --
>> Robert Haas
>> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>>
>
> New patch for Alvaro's consideration.
>
> Very minor changes since the last time, the explanations below are
> literally longer than the changes:
> - Rebased, though I don't think any of the files had changed in the mean
> time
> - Removed infinity checks/errors and the test cases to match
> - Amended documentation to add 'days' after 'step' as suggested
> - Did not add a period as suggested, to remain consistent with other
> descriptions in the same sgml table
> - Altered test case and documentation of 7 day step example so that the
> generated dates do not land evenly on the end date. A reader might
> incorrectly infer that the end date must be in the result set, when it
> doesn't have to be.
> - Removed unnecessary indentation that existed purely due to following of
> other generate_series implementations
>

Attachment Content-Type Size
generate_series_date.v4.diff text/plain 7.6 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2016-03-10 18:27:53 Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-03-10 18:11:57 Adjusting the API of pull_var_clause()