<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Tom Lane <span
dir="ltr"><<ahref="mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us" target="_blank">tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us</a>></span> wrote:<br
/><blockquoteclass="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span
class="">DavidSteele <<a href="mailto:david@pgmasters.net">david@pgmasters.net</a>> writes:<br /> > On 3/17/16
11:30AM, David G. Johnston wrote:<br /></span><span class="">>> I'd call it "generate_dates(...)" and be done
withit.<br /> >> We would then have:<br /> >> generate_series()<br /> >> generate_subscripts()<br />
>>generate_dates()<br /><br /> > To me this completely negates the idea of this "just working" which is<br />
>why it got a +1 from me in the first place. If I have to remember to<br /> > use a different function name then
I'dprefer to just cast on the<br /> > timestamp version of generate_series().<br /><br /></span>Yeah, this point
greatlyweakens the desirability of this function IMO.<br /> I've also gone from "don't care" to "-1".<br /><br />
regards, tom lane<br /></blockquote></div><br /></div><div class="gmail_extra">Since that diminishes
thealready moderate support for this patch, I'll withdraw it.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br /></div><div
class="gmail_extra"><br/></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br /></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br /></div><div
class="gmail_extra"><br/></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br /></div></div>