> 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

It responded to SIGINT, so yeah, meh.

I can see value in aligning the behavior of infinity queries between date
and timestamp, but I have no strong opinion about which behavior is better:
it's either set step = 0 or an ereport(), no biggie if we want to handle
the condition, I rip out the DATE_NOT_FINITE() checks.

Incidentally, is there a reason behind the tendency of internal functions
to avoid parameter defaults in favor of multiple pg_proc entries? I copied
the existing behavior of the int4 generate_series, but having one entry
with the defaults seemed more self-documenting.

Reply via email to