> > > If it didn't respond to SIGINT, that would be an issue, but otherwise > this doesn't seem much more exciting than any other way to create a > query that will run longer than you want to wait. > > regards, tom lane >
It responded to SIGINT, so yeah, meh. I can see value in aligning the behavior of infinity queries between date and timestamp, but I have no strong opinion about which behavior is better: it's either set step = 0 or an ereport(), no biggie if we want to handle the condition, I rip out the DATE_NOT_FINITE() checks. Incidentally, is there a reason behind the tendency of internal functions to avoid parameter defaults in favor of multiple pg_proc entries? I copied the existing behavior of the int4 generate_series, but having one entry with the defaults seemed more self-documenting.
