Re: age() function documentation

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>
Cc: Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: age() function documentation
Date: 2001-04-11 16:49:45
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.30.0104111847360.1201-100000@peter.localdomain
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.

> 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.

By all means.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://yi.org/peter-e/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pascal Scheffers 2001-04-11 16:53:55 pg_dump ordering problem (rc4)
Previous Message Mark Butler 2001-04-11 16:48:49 Re: Index type promotion