On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 10 March 2016 at 06:53, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Alvaro Herrera >>> <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> > Robert Haas wrote: >>> >> I'm pretty meh about the whole idea of this function, though, >>> >> actually, and I don't see a single clear +1 vote for this >>> >> functionality upthread. (Apologies if I've missed one.) In the >>> >> absence of a few of those, I recommend we reject this. >>> > >>> > +1 >>> >>> I'm meh for this patch. >> >> >> "meh" == +1 >> >> I thought it meant -1 > > In my case it meant, like, -0.5. I don't really like adding lots of > utility functions like this to the default install, because I'm not > sure how widely they get used and it gradually increases the size of > the code, system catalogs, etc. But I also don't want to block > genuinely useful things. So basically, I'm not excited about this > patch, but I don't want to fight about it either.
I am of the same feeling, at -0.5. I don't feel like putting -1 for this patch, as I don't really understand why this is worth adding more complexity in the code for something that can be done with generate_series using timestamps. Also, why only dates? And why not other units like hours or seconds? -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
