> > > 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 don't think it's worth getting > distracted. >
+1. It leaves this function consistent with the others, and if we want to add checks later we can do them all at the same time. > > + <row> > + > <entry><literal><function>generate_series(<parameter>start</parameter>, > <parameter>stop</parameter>, <parameter>step > integer</parameter>)</function></literal></entry> > + <entry><type>date</type></entry> > + <entry><type>setof date</type></entry> > + <entry> > + Generate a series of values, from <parameter>start</parameter> > to <parameter>stop</parameter> > + with a step size of <parameter>step</parameter> > > I think this should be followed by the word "days" and a period. > > No objections. I just followed the pattern of the other generate_series() docs. > + else > + /* do when there is no more left */ > + SRF_RETURN_DONE(funcctx); > > I think we should drop the "else" and unindent the next two lines. > That's the style I have seen elsewhere. Plus less indentation equals > more happiness. > No objections here either. I just followed the pattern of generate_series() for int there. > > 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 those, I recommend we reject this. > Just David and Vik so far. The rest were either against(Simon), meh(Robert) or +1ed/-1ed the backpatch, leaving their thoughts on the function itself unspoken. Happy to make the changes above if we're moving forward with it.
