From: | "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Bruno Wolff III" <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
Cc: | "Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "Tino Wildenhain" <tino(at)wildenhain(dot)de>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(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: | 2005-07-22 19:27:50 |
Message-ID: | D425483C2C5C9F49B5B7A41F8944154757CF48@postal.corporate.connx.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Apparently, the Gregorian calendar has been fixed. From this:
http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/ross/phys2081/time/calendar.htm
We have this:
"The Gregorian calendar has been modified since (before anything could
go wrong) to bring the Gregorian 365.2425 down to 365.2422 by cutting
out "leap centuries" that are divisible by 4000 thus giving an accuracy
of about one day in 20,000 years"
I think either approach would be fine as long as it is documented
exactly that the calculation does.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dann Corbit
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 12:24 PM
> To: 'Bruce Momjian'; Bruno Wolff III
> Cc: Greg Stark; Tino Wildenhain; Tom Lane; PostgreSQL-development;
Marc G.
> Fournier
> Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Imprecision of DAYS_PER_MONTH
>
> 365.2425 is the exact value computed by the formulas found in the
> Gregorian calendar (a very good approximation of reality).
>
> 365.2422 is the physical reality of how long it actually takes (but
there
> are tiny wobbles in it).
>
> http://www.timeanddate.com/date/leapyear.html
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us]
> > Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 12:03 PM
> > To: Bruno Wolff III
> > Cc: Dann Corbit; Greg Stark; Tino Wildenhain; Tom Lane; PostgreSQL-
> > development; Marc G. Fournier
> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Imprecision of DAYS_PER_MONTH
> >
> > Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 13:47:29 -0700,
> > > Dann Corbit <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > In round figures:
> > > >
> > > > Since there are 365.2422 days per tropical year, there are
31556926
> > > > seconds per year (give or take leap seconds).
> > > >
> > > > Ref:
> > > > http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-
> > 12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/cale
> > > > ndar_calculations.htm
> > >
> > > According to the current calendar (again ignoring leap seconds)
there
> > > are exactly 365.2425 days per year on average. I think it makes
sense
> to
> > use
> > > this number when dealing with calendar years and months.
> >
> > Someone came up with 365.2422. Which is better?
> >
> > --
> > Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
> > pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
> > + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
> > + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania
> > 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew - Supernews | 2005-07-22 19:37:38 | Re: Imprecision of DAYS_PER_MONTH |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-07-22 19:24:45 | Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC |