| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Imprecision of DAYS_PER_MONTH |
| Date: | 2005-07-21 14:19:42 |
| Message-ID: | 19093.1121955582@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 09:39:38 -0400,
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Let me add that we could actually do this in many places now because we
>> are already converting to 'time' in those places. Is this a TODO?
> Shouldn't you be using 365.2425/12 (30.436875) for the number of days per
> month?
This sort of question is exactly why the entire change was a bad idea.
No one will ever read any of those macros without stopping to look at
the macro definition, which makes them a net readability loss, not gain.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-07-21 14:48:06 | Re: Imprecision of DAYS_PER_MONTH |
| Previous Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2005-07-21 14:09:34 | Re: Imprecision of DAYS_PER_MONTH |