| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Dilger <pgsql(at)markdilger(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [SQL] Interval subtracting |
| Date: | 2006-03-02 14:49:32 |
| Message-ID: | 2476.1141310972@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches pgsql-sql |
Mark Dilger <pgsql(at)markdilger(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> The problem is that you can't determine "what answer justify_days would
>> give" without using the assumption "1 month == 30 days", which is an
>> assumption that justify_hours must not depend on.
> Ahhh. So the fact that justify_days already makes the 1 month == 30 days
> assumption is ok in that function but can't be propagated to justify_hours.
Right. I don't want us to define things so that none of this
functionality is available in situations where the 30-day assumption is
untenable. justify_hours can still do something useful (ie, trim
oversize hours fields) without that.
justify_interval will probably be the new "normal" way to do things when
you are prepared to make both assumptions. I'm not entirely sure about
the use-case for justify_days, but seems we ought to keep it for reasons
of backwards compatibility.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew - Supernews | 2006-03-02 14:58:37 | Re: ACCESS EXCLUSIVE LOCK |
| Previous Message | seth.m.green | 2006-03-02 14:30:19 | Re: ACCESS EXCLUSIVE LOCK |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew - Supernews | 2006-03-02 14:58:37 | Re: ACCESS EXCLUSIVE LOCK |
| Previous Message | seth.m.green | 2006-03-02 14:30:19 | Re: ACCESS EXCLUSIVE LOCK |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-02 15:21:22 | Re: dump with lo |
| Previous Message | Aniko.Badzong | 2006-03-02 14:26:44 | FW: sql copy does not work |