Re: age() function documentation

From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
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 16:09:38
Message-ID: 3AD481C2.42A00C6@alumni.caltech.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > <grumble>
> http://www.postgresql.org/mhonarc/pgsql-hackers/2001-02/msg00550.html

OK, so that narrows down the list of suspects ;)

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). Would we like some additional clarification
in the docs perhaps? Seems to be preferable to dropping all mention,
especially since it is a useful function.

- Thomas

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2001-04-11 16:14:15 Re: age() function documentation
Previous Message Jean-Eric Cuendet 2001-04-11 15:49:00 Postgres & Kerberos