pg.ddx.io  pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>
Cc: Francisco Olarte <folarte@peoplecall.com>
Cc: Michael Bondarenko <work.michael.2956@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org, dgrowleyml@gmail.com, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Subject: Re: BUG #18348: Inconsistency with EXTRACT([field] from INTERVAL);
Date: Wed, 08 May 2024 10:10:48 -0400
Message-ID: <476283.1715177448@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACJufxGFuZsj+31a204fFpxv_RCHA-u1h6WEBZ6qpjBVoio5dQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <18348-b097a3587dfde8a4@postgresql.org>
	<CAApHDvr_-05ce6FaLM0P=hJBdV=Ht3=sdk_Eq__7YOf+fs5x9g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACJufxHYQSKNnt8rS7GxvK04wf75nw_ugMaibFVVfrcdVMmF1Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF_O+z1FU5GN=LnW50QjANGVB8+6VxyK1JHa8fE-Xs205MFuqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+bJJbw6q=6no1Hf67FraYGMo12asWCa7yw=J0zg_ELbivX0gw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3709307.1708201825@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CACJufxGB4MD6vRz3jVGK6kza-6fuDgfW2jC_1S2+MwcQYGkgSA@mail.gmail.com>
	<3749306.1708222748@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CACJufxHL0g73FPaRS+OGSYWJ0YbP6nEdVK79=wjL-TKU0_heDw@mail.gmail.com>
	<222870.1708458150@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<270582.1708462564@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CACJufxFOjGpAQJ5EJ0=a1geERgdHW77SEdRyK8A_qwB3CVdwhQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<166456.1715117228@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CACJufxGFuZsj+31a204fFpxv_RCHA-u1h6WEBZ6qpjBVoio5dQ@mail.gmail.com>

jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com> writes:
> but in real life, for week, we generally begin with 1?
> like "the first week", "second week"
> so should
> select extract(week from interval '1 day');
> return 1
> ?

Hmm, I read it as being "the number of (whole) weeks in the
interval".  Starting with week 1 is what happens in the timestamp
case, true, but I don't find that appropriate for interval.
By analogy,

regression=# select extract(day from interval '23 hours');
 extract 
---------
       0
(1 row)

There's no such thing as "day 0" in the timestamp case,
but that doesn't make this wrong.

In any case, I'm starting to wonder why this issue is on the v17
open items list.  These are hardly new bugs in 17.  If there's
still differences of opinion about what the definition should be,
I think cramming in a change post-feature-freeze is not appropriate.
Let's just queue the issue for the next commitfest (already done
at [1]) and take it off the open items list.

			regards, tom lane

[1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/48/4979/





view thread (31+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <476283.1715177448@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../476283.1715177448@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/476283.1715177448@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
  Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, jian.universality@gmail.com, folarte@peoplecall.com, work.michael.2956@gmail.com, peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com
  Subject: Re: BUG #18348: Inconsistency with EXTRACT([field] from INTERVAL);
  In-Reply-To: <476283.1715177448@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox