X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA572D1D458
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Tue,  2 Dec 2003 14:52:00 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 29317-05
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Tue,  2 Dec 2003 10:51:32 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75254D1C951
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Tue,  2 Dec 2003 10:51:12 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB2Ep019012449;
	Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:51:00 -0500 (EST)
To: Bob Smith <bsmith@h-e.com>
Cc: pgsql-sql <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Problem with intervals 
In-reply-to: <AFC6FD04-2485-11D8-A180-0003933DD370@h-e.com> 
References: <AFC6FD04-2485-11D8-A180-0003933DD370@h-e.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Bob Smith <bsmith@h-e.com>
	message dated "Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:09:20 -0800"
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 09:51:00 -0500
Message-ID: <12448.1070376660@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org
X-Archive-Number: 200312/19
X-Sequence-Number: 16185

Bob Smith <bsmith@h-e.com> writes:
> '1 day' just means '24 hours'

Yup.

> Is this a Postgres bug, or is this correct SQL behavior?

It's arguably a bug, but it's unfixable without a significant change in
the internal representation and handling of intervals.  I don't know
when anyone will get annoyed enough to tackle it.  In the meantime,
consider using date +/- integer arithmetic instead of timestamp + interval.

> I'm running Postgres 7.2.2.

You really should be running something newer ...

			regards, tom lane