Обсуждение: Add generate_series(date,date) and generate_series(date,date,integer)

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com> wrote:
> This patch addresses a personal need: nearly every time I use
> generate_series for timestamps, I end up casting the result into date or the
> ISO string thereof. Like such:
>
> [...]
>
> One thing I discovered in doing this patch is that if you do a timestamp
> generate_series involving infinity....it tries to do it. I didn't wait to
> see if it finished.

Well, I would think that this is a bug that we had better address and
backpatch. It does not make much sense to use infinity for timestamps,
but letting it run infinitely is not good either.

> For the date series, I put in checks to return an empty set:
>
> SELECT d.date_val FROM generate_series('-infinity'::date,'1999-12-29'::date)
> as d(date_val);
>  date_val
> ----------
> (0 rows)
>
> SELECT d.date_val FROM generate_series('1991-09-24'::date,'infinity'::date)
> as d(date_val);
>  date_val
> ----------
> (0 rows)

Wouldn't a proper error be more adapted?
-- 
Michael

Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com> wrote:
>> One thing I discovered in doing this patch is that if you do a timestamp
>> generate_series involving infinity....it tries to do it. I didn't wait to
>> see if it finished.

> Well, I would think that this is a bug that we had better address and
> backpatch. It does not make much sense to use infinity for timestamps,
> but letting it run infinitely is not good either.

Meh.  Where would you cut it off?  AD 10000000000?  A few zeroes either
way doesn't really make much difference.

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

<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br /> If it didn't respond to SIGINT, that would be an issue, but
otherwise<br/> this doesn't seem much more exciting than any other way to create a<br /> query that will run longer
thanyou want to wait.<br /><br />                         regards, tom lane<br /></blockquote></div><br /></div><div
class="gmail_extra">Itresponded to SIGINT, so yeah, meh.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br /></div><div
class="gmail_extra">Ican see value in aligning the behavior of infinity queries between date and timestamp, but I have
nostrong opinion about which behavior is better: it's either set step = 0 or an ereport(), no biggie if we want to
handlethe condition, I rip out the DATE_NOT_FINITE() checks.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br /></div><div
class="gmail_extra">Incidentally,is there a reason behind the tendency of internal functions to avoid parameter
defaultsin favor of multiple pg_proc entries? I copied the existing behavior of the int4 generate_series, but having
oneentry with the defaults seemed more self-documenting.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br /></div><div
class="gmail_extra"><br/></div></div> 

Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com> writes:
> Incidentally, is there a reason behind the tendency of internal functions
> to avoid parameter defaults in favor of multiple pg_proc entries?

Yes: you can't specify defaults in pg_proc.h.

We work around that where absolutely necessary, see the last part of
system_views.sql.  But it's messy enough, and bug-prone enough, to be
better avoided --- for example, it's very easy for the redeclaration
in system_view.sql to forget a STRICT or other similar marking.

Personally I'd say that every one of the existing cases that simply has
a default for the last argument was a bad idea, and would better have
been done in the traditional way with two pg_proc.h entries.
        regards, tom lane

On 01/25/2016 07:22 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> One thing I discovered in doing this patch is that if you do a timestamp
>>> generate_series involving infinity....it tries to do it. I didn't wait to
>>> see if it finished.
>
>> Well, I would think that this is a bug that we had better address and
>> backpatch. It does not make much sense to use infinity for timestamps,
>> but letting it run infinitely is not good either.
>
> Meh. Where would you cut it off? AD 10000000000? A few zeroes either
> way doesn't really make much difference.

Why cut off? Why not to check if any of the input values is an infinity 
and simply error out in that case?

>
> 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.

I disagree. Sure, it's possible to construct queries that take forever, 
but that's difficult (or impossible) to detect at query start. I don't 
think that means we should not guard against cases that are provably 
infinite and can't possibly work.

Imagine for example a script that in some rare cases passes happens to 
pass infinity into generate_series() - in that case I'd much rather 
error out than wait till the end of the universe.

So +1 from me to checking for infinity.

regard

-- 
Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 2:07 AM, 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="">CoreyHuinker <<a href="mailto:corey.huinker@gmail.com">corey.huinker@gmail.com</a>> writes:<br /> >
Incidentally,is there a reason behind the tendency of internal functions<br /> > to avoid parameter defaults in
favorof multiple pg_proc entries?<br /><br /></span>Yes: you can't specify defaults in pg_proc.h.<br /><br /> We work
aroundthat where absolutely necessary, see the last part of<br /> system_views.sql.  But it's messy enough, and
bug-proneenough, to be<br /> better avoided --- for example, it's very easy for the redeclaration<br /> in
system_view.sqlto forget a STRICT or other similar marking.<br /><br /> Personally I'd say that every one of the
existingcases that simply has<br /> a default for the last argument was a bad idea, and would better have<br /> been
donein the traditional way with two pg_proc.h entries.<br /><br />                         regards, tom lane<br
/></blockquote></div><br/></div><div class="gmail_extra">...which answers my follow up question where make_interval was
gettingthe defaults I saw in the table but not the .h file. Thanks!</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br /></div></div> 

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 01/25/2016 07:22 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> One thing I discovered in doing this patch is that if you do a timestamp
>>>> generate_series involving infinity....it tries to do it. I didn't wait
>>>> to
>>>> see if it finished.
>>
>>
>>> Well, I would think that this is a bug that we had better address and
>>> backpatch. It does not make much sense to use infinity for timestamps,
>>> but letting it run infinitely is not good either.
>>
>>
>> Meh. Where would you cut it off? AD 10000000000? A few zeroes either
>> way doesn't really make much difference.
>
>
> Why cut off? Why not to check if any of the input values is an infinity and
> simply error out in that case?

That's exactly my point.

>> 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.
>
> I disagree. Sure, it's possible to construct queries that take forever, but
> that's difficult (or impossible) to detect at query start. I don't think
> that means we should not guard against cases that are provably infinite and
> can't possibly work.
>
> Imagine for example a script that in some rare cases passes happens to pass
> infinity into generate_series() - in that case I'd much rather error out
> than wait till the end of the universe.

Or wait until all the memory of the system is consumed. In the worst
case the OOM killer would come by, say 'Hi!' and do the police work,
but that's not cool either.
-- 
Michael

On 26.01.2016 07:52, Simon Riggs wrote:

>> Imagine for example a script that in some rare cases passes happens to
>> pass infinity into generate_series() - in that case I'd much rather error
>> out than wait till the end of the universe.
>>
>> So +1 from me to checking for infinity.
>>
>
> +1
>
> ERROR infinite result sets are not supported, yet

Maybe we should skip the "yet". Or do we really plan to support them in 
(infinite) future? ;)

+1 from me to check infinity also.

Greetings,
Torsten

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Torsten Zuehlsdorff
<mailinglists@toco-domains.de> wrote:
>
> On 26.01.2016 07:52, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
>>> Imagine for example a script that in some rare cases passes happens to
>>> pass infinity into generate_series() - in that case I'd much rather error
>>> out than wait till the end of the universe.
>>>
>>> So +1 from me to checking for infinity.
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> ERROR infinite result sets are not supported, yet
>
>
> Maybe we should skip the "yet". Or do we really plan to support them in
> (infinite) future? ;)
>
> +1 from me to check infinity also.

Something like the patch attached would be fine? This wins a backpatch
because the query continuously running eats memory, no?
--
Michael

<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Michael Paquier <span
dir="ltr"><<ahref="mailto:michael.paquier@gmail.com" target="_blank">michael.paquier@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br/><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span
class="">OnTue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Torsten Zuehlsdorff<br /> <<a
href="mailto:mailinglists@toco-domains.de">mailinglists@toco-domains.de</a>>wrote:<br /> ><br /> > On
26.01.201607:52, Simon Riggs wrote:<br /> ><br /> >>> Imagine for example a script that in some rare cases
passeshappens to<br /> >>> pass infinity into generate_series() - in that case I'd much rather error<br />
>>>out than wait till the end of the universe.<br /> >>><br /> >>> So +1 from me to checking
forinfinity.<br /> >>><br /> >><br /> >> +1<br /> >><br /> >> ERROR infinite result
setsare not supported, yet<br /> ><br /> ><br /> > Maybe we should skip the "yet". Or do we really plan to
supportthem in<br /> > (infinite) future? ;)<br /> ><br /> > +1 from me to check infinity also.<br /><br
/></span>Somethinglike the patch attached would be fine? This wins a backpatch<br /> because the query continuously
runningeats memory, no?<br /><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">--<br /> Michael<br /></font></span><br /><br
/>--<br /> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (<a
href="mailto:pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org">pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org</a>)<br/> To make changes to your
subscription:<br/><a href="http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers</a><br/><br /></blockquote></div><br /></div><div
class="gmail_extra">I'llmodify my generate_series_date to give similar errors.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br
/></div><divclass="gmail_extra">I have no opinion on backpatch.<br /><br />+1 for flippant references to
infinity.</div><divclass="gmail_extra"><br /></div></div> 

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 09:53:26PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Torsten Zuehlsdorff
> <mailinglists@toco-domains.de> wrote:
> >
> > On 26.01.2016 07:52, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >
> >>> Imagine for example a script that in some rare cases passes
> >>> happens to pass infinity into generate_series() - in that case
> >>> I'd much rather error out than wait till the end of the
> >>> universe.
> >>>
> >>> So +1 from me to checking for infinity.
> >>>
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> ERROR infinite result sets are not supported, yet
> >
> >
> > Maybe we should skip the "yet". Or do we really plan to support
> > them in (infinite) future? ;)
> >
> > +1 from me to check infinity also.
> 
> Something like the patch attached would be fine? This wins a
> backpatch because the query continuously running eats memory, no?

+1 for back-patching.  There's literally no case where an infinite
input could be correct as the start or end of an interval for
generate_series.

Cheers,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

On 26-01-2016 09:53, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Something like the patch attached would be fine? This wins a backpatch
> because the query continuously running eats memory, no?
> 
+1. Although it breaks compatibility, a function that just eats
resources is not correct.


--   Euler Taveira                   Timbira - http://www.timbira.com.br/  PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento,
Suporte24x7 e Treinamento
 

Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 25 January 2016 at 09:55, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
> wrote:
> 
> 
> > Imagine for example a script that in some rare cases passes happens to
> > pass infinity into generate_series() - in that case I'd much rather error
> > out than wait till the end of the universe.
> >
> > So +1 from me to checking for infinity.
> 
> +1
> 
> ERROR infinite result sets are not supported, yet

In the future we may get lazy evaluation of functions.  When and if that
happens we may want to remove this limitation so that you can get a
streaming result producing timestamp values continuously.

(I don't necessarily think you'd use generate_series in such cases.
Maybe you'd want clock_timestamp to generate the present value at each
call, for example.  But there may be uses for synthetic values as well.)

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

On 26.01.2016 13:53, Michael Paquier wrote:

>>>> Imagine for example a script that in some rare cases passes happens to
>>>> pass infinity into generate_series() - in that case I'd much rather error
>>>> out than wait till the end of the universe.
>>>>
>>>> So +1 from me to checking for infinity.
>>>>
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> ERROR infinite result sets are not supported, yet
>>
>>
>> Maybe we should skip the "yet". Or do we really plan to support them in
>> (infinite) future? ;)
>>
>> +1 from me to check infinity also.
>
> Something like the patch attached would be fine? This wins a backpatch
> because the query continuously running eats memory, no?

Looks fine to me.

(Minor mention: is there no newline needed between the tests?)

Greetings,
Torsten

The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world:  tested, passed
Implements feature:       tested, passed
Spec compliant:           tested, passed
Documentation:            tested, failed

Everything looks good except for two minor issues:

1) There should be an informative comment for this struct:

+/* Corey BEGIN */
+typedef struct
+{
+    DateADT        current;
+    DateADT        stop;
+    int32        step;
+} generate_series_date_fctx;

2) There's an extra linefeed after the struct.  Needed?

Regards,
-David

The new status of this patch is: Waiting on Author

On 2/2/16 1:01 PM, Corey Huinker wrote:
> Doh, I left that comment to myself in there. :)

If I had a dime for every time I've done that...

> The corresponding structs in timestamp.c and int.c have no comment, so
> suggestions of what should be there are welcome. In the interim I put in
> this:
>
>     /* state for generate_series_date(date,date,[step]) */

I think that's fine -- whoever commits it may feel otherwise.

> Do you have any insight as to why the documentation test failed?
>
> In the mean time, here's the updated patch.

I didn't pass the docs on account of the wonky comment since I consider
code comments to be part of the docs.  The sgml docs build fine and look
good to me.

I'll retest and update the review accordingly.

--
-David
david@pgmasters.net

The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world:  tested, passed
Implements feature:       tested, passed
Spec compliant:           tested, passed
Documentation:            tested, passed

Everything looks good to me.  Ready for a committer to have a look.

The new status of this patch is: Ready for Committer

On 02/21/2016 07:56 PM, Corey Huinker wrote:
> 
>     Other than that, the only difference is the ::date part. Is it
>     really worth adding extra code just for that? I would say not.
> 
> 
> I would argue it belongs for the sake of completeness. 

So would I.

+1 for adding this missing function.
-- 
Vik Fearing                                          +33 6 46 75 15 36
http://2ndQuadrant.fr     PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

Re: David Fetter 2016-01-26 <20160126180011.GA16903@fetter.org>
> +1 for back-patching.  There's literally no case where an infinite
> input could be correct as the start or end of an interval for
> generate_series.

select * from generate_series(now(), 'infinity', '1 day') limit 10;

... seems pretty legit to me. If limit pushdown into SRFs happened to
work some day, it'd be a pity if the above query raised an error.

Christoph
-- 
cb@df7cb.de | http://www.df7cb.de/

Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org> writes:
> Re: David Fetter 2016-01-26 <20160126180011.GA16903@fetter.org>
>> +1 for back-patching.  There's literally no case where an infinite
>> input could be correct as the start or end of an interval for
>> generate_series.

> select * from generate_series(now(), 'infinity', '1 day') limit 10;
> ... seems pretty legit to me. If limit pushdown into SRFs happened to
> work some day, it'd be a pity if the above query raised an error.

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 16:51:03.303064-052016-02-22 16:51:03.303064-052016-02-23
16:51:03.303064-052016-02-2416:51:03.303064-052016-02-25 16:51:03.303064-052016-02-26 16:51:03.303064-052016-02-27
16:51:03.303064-052016-02-2816:51:03.303064-052016-02-29 16:51:03.303064-052016-03-01 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.
        regards, tom lane

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@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

Hi,

On 02/22/2016 08:04 PM, Corey Huinker wrote:
>     >
>     > 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)...
>
>
> So I should remove the bounds checking from
> generate_series(date,date,[int]) altogether?

I feel rather uneasy about simply removing the 'infinity' checks. Is 
there a way to differentiate those two cases, i.e. when the 
generate_series is called in target list and in the FROM part? If yes, 
we could do the check only in the FROM part, which is the case that does 
not work (and consumes arbitrary amounts of memory).

regards

--
Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

On 2/21/16 2:24 PM, Vik Fearing wrote:
> On 02/21/2016 07:56 PM, Corey Huinker wrote:
>>
>>     Other than that, the only difference is the ::date part. Is it
>>     really worth adding extra code just for that? I would say not.
>>
>>
>> I would argue it belongs for the sake of completeness.
>
> So would I.
>
> +1 for adding this missing function.

+1. FWIW, a sample query I wrote for a customer yesterday would have
looked nicer with this function. Here's how the generate_series looked:

generate_series('2016-03-01'::date, '2016-03-31'::date, interval '1
day')::date

But it would have been cleaner to write:

generate_series('2016-03-01'::date, '2016-03-31'::date)

More importantly, though, I don't like that the timestamp version of the
function happily takes date parameters but returns timestamps. I feel
this could lead to some subtle bugs for the unwary.

--
-David
david@pgmasters.net

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I feel rather uneasy about simply removing the 'infinity' checks. Is there
>> a way to differentiate those two cases, i.e. when the generate_series is
>> called in target list and in the FROM part? If yes, we could do the check
>> only in the FROM part, which is the case that does not work (and consumes
>> arbitrary amounts of memory).
>
> It would be simple enough to remove the infinity test on the "stop" and
> leave it on the "start". Or yank both. Just waiting for others to agree
> which checks should remain.

Let's yank 'em.  This is a minor issue which is distracting us from
the main point of this patch, and I don't think it's worth getting
distracted.

+     <row>
+      <entry><literal><function>generate_series(<parameter>start</parameter>,
<parameter>stop</parameter>, <parameter>step
integer</parameter>)</function></literal></entry>
+      <entry><type>date</type></entry>
+      <entry><type>setof date</type></entry>
+      <entry>
+       Generate a series of values, from <parameter>start</parameter>
to <parameter>stop</parameter>
+       with a step size of <parameter>step</parameter>

I think this should be followed by the word "days" and a period.

+       else
+               /* do when there is no more left */
+               SRF_RETURN_DONE(funcctx);

I think we should drop the "else" and unindent the next two lines.
That's the style I have seen elsewhere.  Plus less indentation equals
more happiness.

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.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Robert Haas wrote:

> Let's yank 'em.  This is a minor issue which is distracting us from
> the main point of this patch, and I don't think it's worth getting
> distracted.

+1

> 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

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@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.
-- 
Michael

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre@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.

+1: David Steele, Vik Fearing, David Johnson, Alvaro Herrera
meh: Robert Haas, Michael Paquier
-1: Simon Riggs

That's probably marginally enough support to proceed with this, but
I'm somewhat unenthused about putting time into it myself.  Alvaro,
any chance you want to handle this one?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Robert Haas wrote:

> That's probably marginally enough support to proceed with this, but
> I'm somewhat unenthused about putting time into it myself.  Alvaro,
> any chance you want to handle this one?

OK, I can take it, but I have a few other things earlier in my queue so
it will be a few days.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 10 March 2016 at 06:53, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> > <alvherre@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

I would say that "meh" is +0, actually.  So the the tally is a small
positive number -- not great, but seems enough to press forward unless
we get more -1 votes.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On 10 March 2016 at 06:53, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> > > <alvherre@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
>
> I would say that "meh" is +0, actually.  So the the tally is a small
> positive number -- not great, but seems enough to press forward unless
> we get more -1 votes.

I'm +1 on this also, for my part.

Thanks!

Stephen

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 10 March 2016 at 06:53, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Alvaro Herrera
>> <alvherre@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.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Corey Huinker wrote:

> New patch for Alvaro's consideration.

Thanks.  As I said, it will be a few days before I get to this; any
further reviews in the meantime are welcome.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 10 March 2016 at 06:53, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Alvaro Herrera
>>> <alvherre@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

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:33 AM, David G. Johnston
<david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
> I tend to think we err toward this too much.  This seems like development
> concerns trumping usability.  Consider that anything someone took the time
> to write and polish to make committable to core was obviously genuinely
> useful to them - and for every person capable of actually taking things that
> far there are likely many more like myself who cannot but have encountered
> the, albeit minor, usability annoyance that this kind of function seeks to
> remove.

Sure, an individual function like this has almost no negative impact.
On the other hand, working around its absence is also trivial.  You
can create a wrapper function that does exactly this in a couple of
lines of SQL.  In my opinion, saying that people should do that in
they need it has some advantages over shipping it to everyone.  If you
don't have it and you want it, you can easily get it.  But what if you
have it and you don't want it, for example because what you really
want is a minimal postgres installation?  You can't take anything in
core back out again, or at least not easily.  Everything about core is
expanding very randomly - code size, shared memory footprint, all of
it.  If you think that has no downside for users, I respectfully
disagree.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> But I still don't know "meh" means.

Maybe this helps?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meh

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On 3/10/2016 11:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> But I still don't know "meh" means.
> Maybe this helps?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meh

LOL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOL

On 11/03/16 08:48, Igal @ Lucee.org wrote:
> On 3/10/2016 11:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> 
>> wrote:
>>> But I still don't know "meh" means.
>> Maybe this helps?
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meh
>
> LOL
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOL
>
>
>
I'm pretending to work, so will you and Robert stop making that pretence 
more difficult!!!  :-)

On 3/10/16 1:24 PM, Corey Huinker wrote:

>     New patch for Alvaro's consideration.
>
>     Very minor changes since the last time, the explanations below are
>     literally longer than the changes:
>     - Rebased, though I don't think any of the files had changed in the
>     mean time
>     - Removed infinity checks/errors and the test cases to match
>     - Amended documentation to add 'days' after 'step' as suggested
>     - Did not add a period as suggested, to remain consistent with other
>     descriptions in the same sgml table
>     - Altered test case and documentation of 7 day step example so that
>     the generated dates do not land evenly on the end date. A reader
>     might incorrectly infer that the end date must be in the result set,
>     when it doesn't have to be.
>     - Removed unnecessary indentation that existed purely due to
>     following of other generate_series implementations

As far as I can see overall support is in favor of this patch although 
it is not overwhelming by any means.

I think in this case it comes down to a committer's judgement so I have 
marked this "ready for committer" and passed the buck on to Álvaro.

-- 
-David
david@pgmasters.net

On 16 March 2016 at 23:32, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote:
> On 3/10/16 1:24 PM, Corey Huinker wrote:
>
>>     New patch for Alvaro's consideration.
>>
>>     Very minor changes since the last time, the explanations below are
>>     literally longer than the changes:
>>     - Rebased, though I don't think any of the files had changed in the
>>     mean time
>>     - Removed infinity checks/errors and the test cases to match
>>     - Amended documentation to add 'days' after 'step' as suggested
>>     - Did not add a period as suggested, to remain consistent with other
>>     descriptions in the same sgml table
>>     - Altered test case and documentation of 7 day step example so that
>>     the generated dates do not land evenly on the end date. A reader
>>     might incorrectly infer that the end date must be in the result set,
>>     when it doesn't have to be.
>>     - Removed unnecessary indentation that existed purely due to
>>     following of other generate_series implementations
>
>
> As far as I can see overall support is in favor of this patch although it is
> not overwhelming by any means.
>
> I think in this case it comes down to a committer's judgement so I have
> marked this "ready for committer" and passed the buck on to Álvaro.
>

So I was pretty much "meh" on this patch too, because I'm not
convinced it actually saves much typing, if any.

However, I now realise that it introduces a backwards-compatibility
breakage. Today it is possible to type

SELECT * FROM generate_series('01-01-2000'::date, '01-04-2000', '7 days');

and it works with just that one cast. However, this patch breaks that.

Now I'm not saying that I have used the above construct. Probably not
in fact, but maybe my work colleagues have. I honestly can't say,  but
the thought of having to grep through thousands of lines of
application code to check isn't particularly appealing.

So I'm afraid it's -1 from me.

Regards,
Dean

On 3/17/16 4:49 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:

> On 16 March 2016 at 23:32, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> I think in this case it comes down to a committer's judgement so I have
>> marked this "ready for committer" and passed the buck on to Álvaro.
> 
> So I was pretty much "meh" on this patch too, because I'm not
> convinced it actually saves much typing, if any.
> 
> However, I now realise that it introduces a backwards-compatibility
> breakage. Today it is possible to type
> 
> SELECT * FROM generate_series('01-01-2000'::date, '01-04-2000', '7 days');

It can also be broken as below and this is even scarier to me:

postgres=# SELECT * FROM generate_series('01-01-2000'::date,
'01-04-2000'::date, '7 days');
ERROR:  invalid input syntax for integer: "7 days"
LINE 1: ...te_series('01-01-2000'::date, '01-04-2000'::date, '7 days');

And only works when:

postgres=# SELECT * FROM generate_series('01-01-2000'::date,
'01-04-2000'::date, '7 days'::interval);   generate_series
------------------------2000-01-01 00:00:00+00
(1 row)

One might argue that string constants for dates in actual code might be
rare but I think it's safe to say that string constants for intervals
are pretty common.  I also think it unlikely that they are all
explicitly cast.

I marked this "waiting for author" so Corey can respond.  I actually
tested with the v3 patch since the v4 patch seems to be broken with git
apply or patch:

$ patch -p1 < ../other/generate_series_date.v4.diff
patching file doc/src/sgml/func.sgml
Hunk #1 succeeded at 14787 (offset 87 lines).
Hunk #2 succeeded at 14871 (offset 87 lines).
patching file src/backend/utils/adt/date.c
patch: **** malformed patch at line 163: diff --git
a/src/include/catalog/pg_proc.h b/src/include/catalog/pg_proc.h

$ git apply -3 ../other/generate_series_date.v4.diff
fatal: corrupt patch at line 163

-- 
-David
david@pgmasters.net

On 3/17/16 11:30 AM, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com
> <mailto:corey.huinker@gmail.com>>wrote:
> 
>     On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:00 AM, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net
>     <mailto:david@pgmasters.net>> wrote:
> 
>         On 3/17/16 4:49 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> 
>         > On 16 March 2016 at 23:32, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net <mailto:david@pgmasters.net>> wrote:
>         >
>         >>
>         >> I think in this case it comes down to a committer's judgement so I have
>         >> marked this "ready for committer" and passed the buck on to Álvaro.
>         >
>         > So I was pretty much "meh" on this patch too, because I'm not
>         > convinced it actually saves much typing, if any.
>         >
>         > However, I now realise that it introduces a backwards-compatibility
>         > breakage. Today it is possible to type
>         >
>         > SELECT * FROM generate_series('01-01-2000'::date, '01-04-2000', '7 days');
> 
>         It can also be broken as below and this is even scarier to me:
> 
> 
> Above and below are the same query​...

Not sure I agree.  My point was that even if developers were pretty
careful with their casting (or are using two actual dates) then there's
still possibility for breakage.

>         postgres=# SELECT * FROM generate_series('01-01-2000'::date,
>         '01-04-2000'::date, '7 days');
>         ERROR:  invalid input syntax for integer: "7 days"
>         LINE 1: ...te_series('01-01-2000'::date, '01-04-2000'::date, '7
>         days');
> <...>
> 
>     I see two ways around this: 
> 
>     1. Drop the step parameter entirely. My own use cases only ever
>     require the step values 1 and -1, and which one the user wants can
>     be inferred from (start < end). This would still change the output
>     type where a person wanted timestamps, but instead input two dates.
> 
> ​Undesirable.​

Very undesirable.  Week intervals are a very valid use case and I don't
like the automagic interval idea.

> 
>     2. Rename the function date_series() or generate_series_date()
> 
>     I still think this is an important function because at the last
>     several places I've worked, I've found myself manufacturing a query
>     where some event data is likely to have date gaps, but we want to
>     see the date gaps or at least have the 0 values contribute to a
>     later average aggregate.
> 
> 
> ​I'd call it "generate_dates(...)" and be done with it.
> 
> We would then have:
> 
> generate_series()
> generate_subscripts()
> generate_dates()

To me this completely negates the idea of this "just working" which is
why it got a +1 from me in the first place.  If I have to remember to
use a different function name then I'd prefer to just cast on the
timestamp version of generate_series().

Sorry, but this is now -1 from me, at least for this commitfest.  While
I like the idea I think it is far too late to be redesigning such a
minor feature.

-- 
-David
david@pgmasters.net

David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> writes:
> On 3/17/16 11:30 AM, David G. Johnston wrote:
>> ​I'd call it "generate_dates(...)" and be done with it.
>> We would then have:
>> generate_series()
>> generate_subscripts()
>> generate_dates()

> To me this completely negates the idea of this "just working" which is
> why it got a +1 from me in the first place.  If I have to remember to
> use a different function name then I'd prefer to just cast on the
> timestamp version of generate_series().

Yeah, this point greatly weakens the desirability of this function IMO.
I've also gone from "don't care" to "-1".
        regards, tom lane

On 3/17/16 11:55 AM, David G. Johnston wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 8:41 AM, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net
> <mailto:david@pgmasters.net>>wrote:
> 
>> Not sure I agree.  My point was that even if developers were pretty
>> careful with their casting (or are using two actual dates) then there's
>> still possibility for breakage.
> 
> With the first argument casted to date it doesn't matter whether you
> cast the second argument as the pseudo-type anyelement will take its
> value from the first argument and force the second to date.

Ah, I see.

> The main problem is that the system tries to cast unknown to integer
> based upon finding gs(date, date, integer) and fails without ever
> considering that gs(ts, ts, interval) would succeed.

I'm tempted to say, "why don't we just fix that?" but I'm sure any
changes in that area would introduce a variety of new and interesting
behaviors.

> ​So let the user decide whether to trade-off learning a new function
> name but getting dates instead of timestamps or going through the hassle
> of casting.​
> 
> For me, it would have been a nice bonus if the generate_series() could
> be used directly but I feel that the desired functionality is desirable
> and the name itself is of only minor consideration.
> 
> I can see that newbies might ponder why two functions exist but they
> should understand "backward compatibility".
> 
> I suspect that most people will simply think: "use generate_series for
> numbers and use generate_dates for, well, dates".  The ones left out in
> the cold are those wondering why they use "generate_series" for
> timestamp series with a finer precision than date.  I'd be willing to
> offer a "generate_timestamps" to placate them.  And might as well toss
> in "generate_numbers" for completeness - though now I likely doom the
> proposal...so I'll stick with just add generate_dates so the behavior is
> possible without superfluous casting or the need to write a custom
> function.  Dates are too common a unit of measure to leave working with
> them this cumbersome.

I'm not finding this argument persuasive.

-- 
-David
david@pgmasters.net

<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> 

David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> writes:
> On 3/17/16 11:55 AM, David G. Johnston wrote:
>> With the first argument casted to date it doesn't matter whether you
>> cast the second argument as the pseudo-type anyelement will take its
>> value from the first argument and force the second to date.

> Ah, I see.

FWIW, there isn't any "anyelement" involved here, AFAICT.  The set
of functions we have today is:

regression=# \df generate*                                                                List of functions  Schema   |
      Name         |         Result data type          |                        Argument data types
   |  Type  
 

------------+---------------------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------+--------pg_catalog
|generate_series     | SETOF bigint                      | bigint, bigint
     | normalpg_catalog | generate_series     | SETOF bigint                      | bigint, bigint, bigint
                              | normalpg_catalog | generate_series     | SETOF integer                     | integer,
integer                                                  | normalpg_catalog | generate_series     | SETOF integer
             | integer, integer, integer                                          | normalpg_catalog | generate_series
  | SETOF numeric                     | numeric, numeric                                                   |
normalpg_catalog| generate_series     | SETOF numeric                     | numeric, numeric, numeric
                      | normalpg_catalog | generate_series     | SETOF timestamp with time zone    | timestamp with
timezone, timestamp with time zone, interval       | normalpg_catalog | generate_series     | SETOF timestamp without
timezone | timestamp without time zone, timestamp without time zone, interval | normalpg_catalog | generate_subscripts
|SETOF integer                     | anyarray, integer                                                  |
normalpg_catalog| generate_subscripts | SETOF integer                     | anyarray, integer, boolean
                      | normal
 
(10 rows)

Now, generate_subscripts is a totally different function that *should*
have a separate name; it does not take a couple of endpoints.  That's
not much of an argument for inventing different names for some of
the functions that do work with a pair of endpoints.

The real problem is that if we invent generate_series(date,date,integer)
then, given the problem "generate_series(date,unknown,unknown)"
the parser's ambiguous-function rules[1] will resolve that as
generate_series(date,date,integer), on the grounds that that provides
more exact type matches (i.e. 1) than any of the other alternatives.
Previously, the same call would have been resolved as
generate_series(timestamptz,timestamptz,interval) on the grounds that
that's reachable by casting and timestamptz is a preferred type.
So if you had written such a call with an interval literal and didn't
bother to cast the literal, your code would break.

We could avoid that problem if the new function were defined as
generate_series(date,date,interval), but then I'm not certain
what the code ought to do if the given interval is not a multiple
of a day.

One idea that might be worth considering is to define the function
as generate_series(date,date,interval) returns timestamp (without
time zone).  The point here would be only to move the behavior for
date inputs as far as getting timestamp without tz rather than
timestamp with tz; which would at least save some timezone rotations
in typical use, as well as rather debatable semantics.  (The fact
that timestamptz is the preferred type in this hierarchy isn't
really doing us any favors here.)
        regards, tom lane

[1] http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/typeconv-func.html

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> One idea that might be worth considering is to define the function
> as generate_series(date,date,interval) returns timestamp (without
> time zone).  The point here would be only to move the behavior for
> date inputs as far as getting timestamp without tz rather than
> timestamp with tz; which would at least save some timezone rotations
> in typical use, as well as rather debatable semantics.  (The fact
> that timestamptz is the preferred type in this hierarchy isn't
> really doing us any favors here.)

That's a fairly tenuous benefit, though, and a substantially different
patch.  I think it's time to give up here and move on.  We can revisit
this for another release after we've had more time to think about it,
if that seems like a smart thing to do when the time comes.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On 3/17/16 1:17 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> One idea that might be worth considering is to define the function
>> as generate_series(date,date,interval) returns timestamp (without
>> time zone).  The point here would be only to move the behavior for
>> date inputs as far as getting timestamp without tz rather than
>> timestamp with tz; which would at least save some timezone rotations
>> in typical use, as well as rather debatable semantics.  (The fact
>> that timestamptz is the preferred type in this hierarchy isn't
>> really doing us any favors here.)
> 
> That's a fairly tenuous benefit, though, and a substantially different
> patch.  I think it's time to give up here and move on.  We can revisit
> this for another release after we've had more time to think about it,
> if that seems like a smart thing to do when the time comes.

This has been marked "returned with feedback".

-- 
-David
david@pgmasters.net

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> One idea that might be worth considering is to define the function
>> as generate_series(date,date,interval) returns timestamp (without
>> time zone).  The point here would be only to move the behavior for
>> date inputs as far as getting timestamp without tz rather than
>> timestamp with tz; which would at least save some timezone rotations
>> in typical use, as well as rather debatable semantics.

> That's a fairly tenuous benefit, though, and a substantially different
> patch.

Well, some folks were already of the opinion that the patch's benefits
were tenuous ;-)

> I think it's time to give up here and move on.

Agreed, letting this go for now seems like the right move.  Maybe
someone will have a bright idea later.
        regards, tom lane