On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> writes: > > On 3/17/16 11:30 AM, David G. Johnston wrote: > >> I'd call it "generate_dates(...)" and be done with it. > >> We would then have: > >> generate_series() > >> generate_subscripts() > >> generate_dates() > > > To me this completely negates the idea of this "just working" which is > > why it got a +1 from me in the first place. If I have to remember to > > use a different function name then I'd prefer to just cast on the > > timestamp version of generate_series(). > > Yeah, this point greatly weakens the desirability of this function IMO. > I've also gone from "don't care" to "-1". > > regards, tom lane > Since that diminishes the already moderate support for this patch, I'll withdraw it.
