Message-ID: <40FB8DC2.1080405@ualg.pt>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:00:50 +0100
From: Luis Sousa <llsousa@ualg.pt>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
	rv:1.6) Gecko/20040413 Debian/1.6-5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Theodore Petrosky <tedpet5@yahoo.com>, pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Problem in age on a dates interval
References: <20040716115215.29699.qmail@web41010.mail.yahoo.com>
	<20678.1089988447@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <20678.1089988447@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I worked around this problem returning the difference between the two 
dates, using extract doy from both.
Anyway, this will cause a bug on my code when changing the year. Any ideas?

Best regards,
Luis Sousa

Tom Lane wrote:

>Theodore Petrosky <tedpet5@yahoo.com> writes:
>  
>
>>wow.... at first I thought I had my head around a leap
>>year problem so I advanced your query a year....
>>    
>>
>
>I think what's going on here is a difference of interpretation about
>whether an "M months D days" interval means to add the months first
>or the days first.  For instance
>
>2005-02-18 plus 2 months = 2005-04-18, plus 24 days = 2005-05-12
>
>2005-02-18 plus 24 days = 2005-03-14, plus 2 months = 2005-05-14
>
>The timestamp-plus-interval operator is evidently doing addition the
>first way, but it looks like age() is calculating the difference in a
>way that implicitly corresponds to the second way.
>
>I have some vague recollection that this has come up before, but
>I don't recall whether we concluded that age() needs to be changed
>or not.  In any case it's not risen to the top of anyone's to-do list,
>because I see that age() still acts this way in CVS tip.
>
>			regards, tom lane
>
>
>  
>