From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org, Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: age() function documentation |
Date: | 2001-04-11 17:16:44 |
Message-ID: | 200104111716.NAA05968@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Thomas Lockhart writes:
>
> > Why do you have a problem with the age() function? It *does* behave
> > differently than date subtraction, as explicitly mentioned in the docs
> > (preserving years, etc etc).
>
> As you see in one of the examples I posted, it does not preserve years and
> months. What exactly does that mean anyway? Simple subtraction also
> preserves years and months, as I see it.
From your URL email, this one seems to work:
select age(date '1999-05-17', date '1957-06-13');
age
-------------------------------
41 years 11 mons 3 days 23:00
(1 row)
This one did not:
peter=# select date '1999-08-13' - date '1999-06-13';
?column?
----------
61
(1 row)
and this one is less than one month:
peter=# select age(date '1999-05-17', date '1999-06-13');
age
----------
-27 days
(1 row)
I will admit age() is a little confusing, but it seems to work as
intended.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-04-11 17:43:44 | Re: RPM upgrade caveats going from a beta version to RC |
Previous Message | Philip Warner | 2001-04-11 17:12:38 | Re: pg_dump ordering problem (rc4) |