Re: BUG #14294: Problem in generate series between dates
От | Andrew Gierth |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #14294: Problem in generate series between dates |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 878tvc4nk4.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #14294: Problem in generate series between dates (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #14294: Problem in generate series between dates
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: >> The lack of generate_series(date,date,integer) is sometimes >> annoying, even though it can be worked around using the >> timestamp-without-timezone variant of generate_series. Tom> Or you can do it with "base_date + generate_series(integer...)". Tom> I think we looked at this when the timestamp generate_series Tom> functions were put in, and were worried about overloading the name Tom> so far that common use-cases would get ambiguous-function Tom> failures. If that can be shown not to happen, though, it'd be Tom> worth adding such a function IMO. I don't see why there would be ambiguity. date_part already has overloads for every date/time type without causing any issues (but date_trunc does not, which is another source of subtle timezone bugs). Some experimentation with creating pg_catalog.generate_series(date,date,integer) and trying the usual use-cases doesn't seem to turn up any issues. Looking at the list of implicit casts also doesn't suggest that there would be any problems. -- Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: