From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Martin Marques <martin@bugs.unl.edu.ar>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: age() vs. timestamp substraction
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 14:37:24 -0400
Message-ID: <29752.1160073444@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cbcf271add3140fe7cff8d45f31af585@bugs.unl.edu.ar>
References: <cbcf271add3140fe7cff8d45f31af585@bugs.unl.edu.ar>
Martin Marques <martin@bugs.unl.edu.ar> writes:
> I just found this problem with the age() function, which AFAIK should
> give the same resulte as a subtraction of the argument from now(),
Where did you get that idea? age's reference point is current_date (ie,
midnight) not now(). There are also some differences in the calculation
compared to a plain timestamp subtraction.
regards, tom lane
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-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, martin@bugs.unl.edu.ar
Subject: Re: age() vs. timestamp substraction
In-Reply-To: <29752.1160073444@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