| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Mark Dilger <pgsql(at)markdilger(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [SQL] Interval subtracting |
| Date: | 2006-03-01 23:07:42 |
| Message-ID: | 16750.1141254462@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches pgsql-sql |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Based on that, I guess I have to change my vote: justify_hours should
>> still not look at the month (because it shouldn't use the month=30days
>> assumption), but justify_days should be changed to be effectively a
>> combination of both functions --- that is, it should fix all three
>> fields using both the 30days and the 24hours assumptions. Then it could
>> guarantee that all come out with the same sign.
> If we do that, we should just call it justify_interval(). I am thinking
> this is the direction to go, and for people who want more control they
> use the justify_hours and justify_days, and those are left unchanged.
Well, the question is whether justify_days has a sane definition that is
different from this. Based on your example, I'm not seeing one.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2006-03-01 23:10:18 | Re: [SQL] Interval subtracting |
| Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2006-03-01 23:07:22 | Re: [SQL] Interval subtracting |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2006-03-01 23:10:18 | Re: [SQL] Interval subtracting |
| Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2006-03-01 23:07:22 | Re: [SQL] Interval subtracting |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2006-03-01 23:10:18 | Re: [SQL] Interval subtracting |
| Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2006-03-01 23:07:22 | Re: [SQL] Interval subtracting |