On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 3:21 AM Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 at 16:15, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I like the idea, especially the date variant. Unlike Tom, I'm not > > particularly concerned about breakage of existing scripts, as > > most already are working just fine with raw numbers and I don't see this > > patch breaking them. > > > > In a selfish vein, I would use the "date" and timestamp variants a lot. I > > would use the "time" ones seldom to never. > > But it's completely trivial to emulate random(min_date, max_date), just by > doing > > min_date + random(0, max_date - min_date) > > Is it really worth adding a core function for that? >
I feel like this is a very similar argument against what was ultimately the addition of timestamp based generate_series functions, and similarly I think adding these in would be a rather useful improvement for users, though like generate_series, we don't need to hit every different data type (no one should ever generate a random timetz for instance). Robert Treat https://xzilla.net
