Christoph Berg <m...@debian.org> 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 generate_series(now(), 'infinity', '1 day') limit 10;
> ... seems pretty legit to me. If limit pushdown into SRFs happened to
> work some day, it'd be a pity if the above query raised an error.
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
-------------------------------
2016-02-21 16:51:03.303064-05
2016-02-22 16:51:03.303064-05
2016-02-23 16:51:03.303064-05
2016-02-24 16:51:03.303064-05
2016-02-25 16:51:03.303064-05
2016-02-26 16:51:03.303064-05
2016-02-27 16:51:03.303064-05
2016-02-28 16:51:03.303064-05
2016-02-29 16:51:03.303064-05
2016-03-01 16:51:03.303064-05
(10 rows)
Time: 8.457 ms
Given that counterexample, I think we not only shouldn't back-patch such a
change but should reject it altogether.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
