On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 10 March 2016 at 06:53, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Alvaro Herrera
>>> <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.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.

I am of the same feeling, at -0.5. I don't feel like putting -1 for
this patch, as I don't really understand why this is worth adding more
complexity in the code for something that can be done with
generate_series using timestamps. Also, why only dates? And why not
other units like hours or seconds?

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to