Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> We really wanted to avoid doing calculations in numeric as much as
> possible. So we should figure out a different way to write this. The
> attached patch works for me. It's a bit ugly since it hardcodes some
> factors. Maybe we can rephrase it a bit more elegantly.
I think it's fine but needs some commentary. Maybe about like
"To do this calculation in integer arithmetic even though
DAYS_PER_YEAR is fractional, multiply everything by 4
and then divide by 4 again at the end. This relies on
DAYS_PER_YEAR being a multiple of 0.25 and on SECS_PER_DAY
being a multiple of 4."
BTW, it might be good to parenthesize as
(... big calculation ...) * (SECS_PER_DAY/4)
to eliminate any question of whether the value could overflow
before the final division by 4.
regards, tom lane
