| From: | Pietro Pugni <pietro(dot)pugni(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #14632: Plus and minus operators inconsistency with leap years and year intervals. |
| Date: | 2017-04-26 23:16:13 |
| Message-ID: | 62AA1945-7282-4166-8991-E6EA4C9C37A5@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Pietro Pugni <pietro(dot)pugni(at)gmail(dot)com <mailto:pietro(dot)pugni(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
> I don't know if you intended to supersize your response but it ended up that way in my mail client.
It was my client (Mail on OS X) that messed up font size and just saw it from the web browser..
> I'll agree that the age function has enough data available to it to return 10 years in this case.
>
> 28 days, target month is February in a non-leap-year (1922), convert to 1 month. 11 months + 1 month = 12 months = 1 year. 9 years + 1 year = 10 years.
>
> But the provided answer is correct as well...
This is the sort of ambiguity/inconsistency I was referring to. Intervals need a context in order to have a meaning but they never gave me issues except from leap years. So, I think it should be solved by “simply” threating leap years in a different way. Intervals are used to approach a human meaning of time measure, what we call “age”. Leap years should represent a specific exception IMHO.
Kind regards,
Pietro Pugni
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2017-04-26 23:18:52 | Re: BUG #14632: Plus and minus operators inconsistency with leap years and year intervals. |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-04-26 23:12:30 | Re: Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression |