From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
Cc: | Doug McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org>, Ricardo Perez Lopez <ricpelo(at)hotmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: '1 year' = '360 days' ???? |
Date: | 2004-10-24 20:41:33 |
Message-ID: | 17927.1098650493@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> writes:
> Wikipedia gives 365.242189670 days (86400 seconds) as the length of
> the mean solar year in 2000. To give you some idea of how constant
> that values is, Wikipedia claims that 2000 years ago the mean solar
> year was about 10 seconds longer. Using the above value I get there
> is an average of 2629743 seconds in a month.
> And yet another option is to note that in the Gregorian calendar there are
> 400*365+97 days or 400*12 months in 400 years, which gives 2629746 seconds
> per month on average.
I like the latter approach, mainly because it gives a defensible
rationale for using a particular exact value. With the solar-year
approach there's no strong reason why you should use 2000 (or any other
particular year) as the reference; and any value you did use would be
subject to both roundoff and observational error. With the Gregorian
calendar as reference, 2629746 seconds is the *exact* answer, and it's
correct because the Pope says so ;-).
(Or, for the Protestants among us, it's correct because the SQL standard
specifies use of the Gregorian calendar.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Philip Pinkerton | 2004-10-24 21:10:32 | pqAdmin3 |
Previous Message | Jonathan Weiss | 2004-10-24 20:00:09 | Re: Problem with 7.4.1 and complicated queries |