| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "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 16:04:46 |
| Message-ID: | 31587.1458230686@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2016-03-17 16:05:21 | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing |
| Previous Message | David Steele | 2016-03-17 16:03:49 | Re: Re: Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer) |