From: | Brendan Jurd <blakjak(at)blakjak(dot)sytes(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Time span conversion function |
Date: | 2005-01-15 06:25:41 |
Message-ID: | 41E8B765.80601@blakjak.sytes.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>Brendan Jurd <blakjak(at)blakjak(dot)sytes(dot)net> writes:
>
>
>>Of course, it would be possible to create a shorthand version of the
>>function which expects (text, interval), and passes directly to
>>time_span($1, now(), $2).
>>
>>
>
>This bothers me a bit. That essentially says that (text, interval)
>has a hidden instability: the results depend on when you execute it.
>
>If we allow this form, it should be restricted to only those units
>(values of the text parameter) for which the result would *not*
>depend on now().
>
>
mm, I see your point. I suppose the only real reason to have the
shorthand version is for people who want to test an interval value and
don't particularly care what the startpoint is -- so they just use now()
because it's a convenient way of getting a timestamp that satisfies the
function.
To be honest, I'd be quite comfortable with dropping the shorthand
version from the proposal. If the caller has to type another 7
characters, so be it. It could fall under the "if you want it, define
your own function for it" category.
BJ
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2005-01-15 07:14:17 | Re: sparse (static analyzer) report |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-01-15 06:20:23 | Re: Time span conversion function |