Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Based on that, I guess I have to change my vote: justify_hours should > >> still not look at the month (because it shouldn't use the month=30days > >> assumption), but justify_days should be changed to be effectively a > >> combination of both functions --- that is, it should fix all three > >> fields using both the 30days and the 24hours assumptions. Then it could > >> guarantee that all come out with the same sign. > > > If we do that, we should just call it justify_interval(). I am thinking > > this is the direction to go, and for people who want more control they > > use the justify_hours and justify_days, and those are left unchanged. > > Well, the question is whether justify_days has a sane definition that is > different from this. Based on your example, I'm not seeing one.
Uh, justify days only deals with days <--> months conversions. There is no processing for hours. I don't understand your comment. -- Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us SRA OSS, Inc. http://www.sraoss.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
