Corey Huinker <corey.huin...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 3:01 PM Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 5:43 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Oh --- looks like numeric generate_series() already throws error for >>> this, so we should just make the timestamp variants do the same.
> This came up once before > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqQUuUh_W3s55eSiMnt901Ud3meF7f_96yPkKcqfd1ZaMg%40mail.gmail.com Oh! I'd totally forgotten that thread, but given that discussion, and particularly the counterexample at https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/16807.1456091547%40sss.pgh.pa.us it now feels to me like maybe this change was a mistake. Perhaps instead of the committed change, we ought to go the other way and rip out the infinity checks in numeric generate_series(). In view of tomorrow's minor-release wrap, there is not time for the sort of more leisured discussion that I now think this topic needs. I propose to revert eafdf9de0 et al before the wrap, and think about this at more length before doing anything. regards, tom lane
