From: Mark Dilger <pgsql@markdilger.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [SQL] Interval subtracting
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 17:18:12 -0800
Message-ID: <440647D4.9060601@markdilger.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <17752.1141259857@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <200603012326.k21NQOv08610@candle.pha.pa.us>
<4406331A.6080307@markdilger.com>
<17317.1141257505@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<44063632.20505@markdilger.com>
<17752.1141259857@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Tom Lane wrote:
> Mark Dilger <pgsql@markdilger.com> writes:
>
>>Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>>If so, one function or the other is cheating.
>
>
>>That depends what you mean by cheating. The justify_hours function
>>looks to see what answer justify_days would give, but does not
>>actually change the data. I described this all earlier and I still
>>don't see why there is anything wrong with it.
>
>
> The problem is that you can't determine "what answer justify_days would
> give" without using the assumption "1 month == 30 days", which is an
> assumption that justify_hours must not depend on.
Ahhh. So the fact that justify_days already makes the 1 month == 30 days
assumption is ok in that function but can't be propagated to justify_hours.
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: pgsql@markdilger.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
Subject: Re: [SQL] Interval subtracting
In-Reply-To: <440647D4.9060601@markdilger.com>
* 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