On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Oooh ... actually, that works today if you consider the SRF-in-targetlist > case: > > regression=# select generate_series(now(), 'infinity', '1 day') limit 10; > generate_series > ------------------------------- > 2016-02-21 16:51:03.303064-05 > 2016-02-22 16:51:03.303064-05 > 2016-02-23 16:51:03.303064-05 > 2016-02-24 16:51:03.303064-05 > 2016-02-25 16:51:03.303064-05 > 2016-02-26 16:51:03.303064-05 > 2016-02-27 16:51:03.303064-05 > 2016-02-28 16:51:03.303064-05 > 2016-02-29 16:51:03.303064-05 > 2016-03-01 16:51:03.303064-05 > (10 rows) > > Time: 8.457 ms > > Given that counterexample, I think we not only shouldn't back-patch such a > change but should reject it altogether.
Ouch, good point. The overflows are a different problem that we had better address though (still on my own TODO list)... -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
