Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > regression=# select * from pg_generate_sequence(8, 4); > ERROR: finish is less than start
Hm, would it be better just to return an empty set? Certainly I'd expect pg_generate_sequence(1,0) to return an empty set with no error. > regression=# select * from pg_generate_sequence(3,8000000000); > ERROR: range of start to finish is too large > HINT: start to finish range must be less than 4294967295 Is there a good reason for that restriction? (I've never thought it was good design for the SRF API to assume that the number of iterations could be determined in advance, anyway.) > I'm not sure if it would be a good thing, or too confusing, to document > pg_generate_sequence() on the "Sequence Manipulation Functions" page in > the docs. Any opinions on that? It is *not* a sequence function in the sense used on that page. I'm not quite sure where to put it, but don't give people the impression that it is related to sequence objects. I was going to say "pg_generate_sequence" is a fine name, but after thinking about the lack of relation to sequence objects I think we ought not use "sequence" in the name. How about "pg_generate_series" or "pg_generate_set"? Actually I think you could leave off the pg_ prefix and just make it generate_series or generate_set. It's not Postgres-specific in the same way that, say. pg_get_indexdef is. Maybe the best documentation answer is to create a new subsection in the Functions chapter. This may be our first standard set-returning function but I bet it will not be the last, so the shortness of the subsection doesn't bother me. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match