On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Corey Huinker <corey.huin...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:00 AM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/17/16 4:49 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>>
>> > On 16 March 2016 at 23:32, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I think in this case it comes down to a committer's judgement so I have
>> >> marked this "ready for committer" and passed the buck on to Álvaro.
>> >
>> > So I was pretty much "meh" on this patch too, because I'm not
>> > convinced it actually saves much typing, if any.
>> >
>> > However, I now realise that it introduces a backwards-compatibility
>> > breakage. Today it is possible to type
>> >
>> > SELECT * FROM generate_series('01-01-2000'::date, '01-04-2000', '7
>> days');
>>
>> It can also be broken as below and this is even scarier to me:
>>
>
Above and below are the same query...
>
>> postgres=# SELECT * FROM generate_series('01-01-2000'::date,
>> '01-04-2000'::date, '7 days');
>> ERROR: invalid input syntax for integer: "7 days"
>> LINE 1: ...te_series('01-01-2000'::date, '01-04-2000'::date, '7 days');
>>
>> And only works when:
>>
>> postgres=# SELECT * FROM generate_series('01-01-2000'::date,
>> '01-04-2000'::date, '7 days'::interval);
>> generate_series
>> ------------------------
>> 2000-01-01 00:00:00+00
>> (1 row)
>> --
>> -David
>> da...@pgmasters.net
>>
>
> Not sure what's wrong with the patch, but I get a clean one to you pending
> the outcome of the design discussion. v4 just ripped out the infinity
> tests, so v3 is valid for the issue you found..
>
> So the function clobbers the situation where the user meant a timestamp
> range but instead gave two dates, and meant an interval but gave a string.
> I'm curious how generate_series() for numeric didn't have the same issue
> with floats.
>
>
The numeric forms use anyelement for all three arguments but the timestamp
version uses an explicit interval for the third.
I see two ways around this:
>
> 1. Drop the step parameter entirely. My own use cases only ever require
> the step values 1 and -1, and which one the user wants can be inferred from
> (start < end). This would still change the output type where a person
> wanted timestamps, but instead input two dates.
>
Undesirable.
2. Rename the function date_series() or generate_series_date()
>
> I still think this is an important function because at the last several
> places I've worked, I've found myself manufacturing a query where some
> event data is likely to have date gaps, but we want to see the date gaps or
> at least have the 0 values contribute to a later average aggregate.
>
>
I'd call it "generate_dates(...)" and be done with it.
We would then have:
generate_series()
generate_subscripts()
generate_dates()
David J.
