Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On 11/03/16 08:48, Igal @ Lucee.org wrote: On 3/10/2016 11:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: But I still don't know "meh" means. Maybe this helps? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meh LOL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOL

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:33 AM, David G. Johnston > wrote: > > I tend to think we err toward this too much. This seems like development > > concerns trumping usability. Consider that

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On 3/10/2016 11:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: But I still don't know "meh" means. Maybe this helps? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meh LOL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOL -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > But I still don't know "meh" means. Maybe this helps? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meh -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On 10 March 2016 at 18:45, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:33 AM, David G. Johnston > wrote: > > I tend to think we err toward this too much. This seems like development > > concerns trumping usability. Consider that anything

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:33 AM, David G. Johnston wrote: > I tend to think we err toward this too much. This seems like development > concerns trumping usability. Consider that anything someone took the time > to write and polish to make committable to core was

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

removed leftover development comment On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Corey Huinker wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Robert Haas > wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Simon Riggs >> wrote: >> > On 10

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Robert Haas > wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Simon Riggs > wrote: > >> On 10 March 2016 at 06:53, Michael Paquier

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Simon Riggs > wrote: > > On 10 March 2016 at 06:53, Michael Paquier > > wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Alvaro

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> On 10 March 2016 at 06:53, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Alvaro Herrera >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

Corey Huinker wrote: > New patch for Alvaro's consideration. Thanks. As I said, it will be a few days before I get to this; any further reviews in the meantime are welcome. -- Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Simon Riggs > wrote: > > On 10 March 2016 at 06:53, Michael Paquier > > wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Alvaro

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 10 March 2016 at 06:53, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Alvaro Herrera >> wrote: >> > Robert Haas wrote: >> >> I'm pretty meh

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > On 10 March 2016 at 06:53, Michael Paquier > > wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Alvaro Herrera > > > wrote: > > > > Robert Haas wrote: > > > >> I'm

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

Simon Riggs wrote: > On 10 March 2016 at 06:53, Michael Paquier > wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Alvaro Herrera > > wrote: > > > Robert Haas wrote: > > >> I'm pretty meh about the whole idea of this function, though, > > >>

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On 10 March 2016 at 06:53, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > Robert Haas wrote: > >> I'm pretty meh about the whole idea of this function, though, > >> actually, and I don't see a single

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

Robert Haas wrote: > That's probably marginally enough support to proceed with this, but > I'm somewhat unenthused about putting time into it myself. Alvaro, > any chance you want to handle this one? OK, I can take it, but I have a few other things earlier in my queue so it will be a few days.

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: >> Robert Haas wrote: >>> I'm pretty meh about the whole idea of this function, though, >>> actually, and I don't see a single

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Alvaro Herrera 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

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

Robert Haas wrote: > Let's yank 'em. This is a minor issue which is distracting us from > the main point of this patch, and I don't think it's worth getting > distracted. +1 > I'm pretty meh about the whole idea of this function, though, > actually, and I don't see a single clear +1 vote for

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Corey Huinker 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

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

> > > It would be simple enough to remove the infinity test on the "stop" and > > leave it on the "start". Or yank both. Just waiting for others to agree > > which checks should remain. > > Let's yank 'em. This is a minor issue which is distracting us from > the main point of this patch, and I

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Corey Huinker wrote: >> >> I feel rather uneasy about simply removing the 'infinity' checks. Is there >> a way to differentiate those two cases, i.e. when the generate_series is >> called in target list and in the FROM part? If yes, we

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

> > > I feel rather uneasy about simply removing the 'infinity' checks. Is there > a way to differentiate those two cases, i.e. when the generate_series is > called in target list and in the FROM part? If yes, we could do the check > only in the FROM part, which is the case that does not work (and

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

Hi, On 02/22/2016 08:04 PM, Corey Huinker wrote: > > Given that counterexample, I think we not only shouldn't back-patch such a > change but should reject it altogether. Ouch, good point. The overflows are a different problem that we had better address though (still on my

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

> > > > > Given that counterexample, I think we not only shouldn't back-patch such > a > > change but should reject it altogether. > > Ouch, good point. The overflows are a different problem that we had > better address though (still on my own TODO list)... > So I should remove the bounds

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Oooh ... actually, that works today if you consider the SRF-in-targetlist > case: > > regression=# select generate_series(now(), 'infinity', '1 day') limit 10; > generate_series > --- >

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

Christoph Berg writes: > Re: David Fetter 2016-01-26 <20160126180011.ga16...@fetter.org> >> +1 for back-patching. There's literally no case where an infinite >> input could be correct as the start or end of an interval for >> generate_series. > select * from

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

Re: David Fetter 2016-01-26 <20160126180011.ga16...@fetter.org> > +1 for back-patching. There's literally no case where an infinite > input could be correct as the start or end of an interval for > generate_series. select * from generate_series(now(), 'infinity', '1 day') limit 10; ... seems

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On 26.01.2016 13:53, Michael Paquier wrote: Imagine for example a script that in some rare cases passes happens to pass infinity into generate_series() - in that case I'd much rather error out than wait till the end of the universe. So +1 from me to checking for infinity. +1 ERROR infinite

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On 26.01.2016 07:52, Simon Riggs wrote: Imagine for example a script that in some rare cases passes happens to pass infinity into generate_series() - in that case I'd much rather error out than wait till the end of the universe. So +1 from me to checking for infinity. +1 ERROR infinite

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Torsten Zuehlsdorff > wrote: > > > > On 26.01.2016 07:52, Simon Riggs wrote: > > > >>> Imagine for example a script that in some rare cases passes

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 09:53:26PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Torsten Zuehlsdorff > wrote: > > > > On 26.01.2016 07:52, Simon Riggs wrote: > > > >>> Imagine for example a script that in some rare cases passes > >>> happens to

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On 26-01-2016 09:53, Michael Paquier wrote: > Something like the patch attached would be fine? This wins a backpatch > because the query continuously running eats memory, no? > +1. Although it breaks compatibility, a function that just eats resources is not correct. -- Euler Taveira

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

Revised patch: Differences in this patch vs my first one: - infinite bounds generate errors identical to Michael's timestamp patch (though I did like Simon's highly optimistic error message). - Bounds checking moved before memory context allocation - arg variable "finish" renamed "stop" to match

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

Simon Riggs wrote: > On 25 January 2016 at 09:55, Tomas Vondra > wrote: > > > > Imagine for example a script that in some rare cases passes happens to > > pass infinity into generate_series() - in that case I'd much rather error > > out than wait till the end of

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: > > On 26.01.2016 07:52, Simon Riggs wrote: > >>> Imagine for example a script that in some rare cases passes happens to >>> pass infinity into generate_series() - in that case I'd much rather error >>> out

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On 25 January 2016 at 09:55, Tomas Vondra wrote: > Imagine for example a script that in some rare cases passes happens to > pass infinity into generate_series() - in that case I'd much rather error > out than wait till the end of the universe. > > So +1 from me to

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 2:07 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Corey Huinker writes: > > Incidentally, is there a reason behind the tendency of internal functions > > to avoid parameter defaults in favor of multiple pg_proc entries? > > Yes: you can't specify

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 01/25/2016 07:22 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Michael Paquier writes: >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Corey Huinker >>> wrote: One thing I

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On 01/25/2016 07:22 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Michael Paquier writes: On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Corey Huinker wrote: One thing I discovered in doing this patch is that if you do a timestamp generate_series involving infinityit tries to

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

> > > 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

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

Corey Huinker writes: > Incidentally, is there a reason behind the tendency of internal functions > to avoid parameter defaults in favor of multiple pg_proc entries? Yes: you can't specify defaults in pg_proc.h. We work around that where absolutely necessary, see the

[HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

This patch addresses a personal need: nearly every time I use generate_series for timestamps, I end up casting the result into date or the ISO string thereof. Like such: SELECT d.dt::date as dt FROM generate_series('2015-01-01'::date, '2016-01-04'::date,

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Corey Huinker wrote: > This patch addresses a personal need: nearly every time I use > generate_series for timestamps, I end up casting the result into date or the > ISO string thereof. Like such: > > [...] > > One thing I discovered in

Re: [HACKERS] Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

Michael Paquier writes: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Corey Huinker > wrote: >> One thing I discovered in doing this patch is that if you do a timestamp >> generate_series involving infinityit tries to do it. I didn't wait to >> see