On Jan 10, 2008 5:00 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The spec's approach to datetime operations in general is almost totally > brain-dead, and so you won't find a lot of support around here for hewing > to the straight-and-narrow-spec-compliance approach. If they have not > even heard of daylight-savings time, how can anyone credit them with any > meaningful contact with the real world? We'll cite the spec where it > suits us, but in this area "the spec says you can't do that" carries > very little weight.
It's true that the spec fails to consider DST, in that it doesn't partition "day" and "second" intervals separately. But is that really a reason to reject the concept of interval partitioning altogether? It seems the spec has the right idea, it just doesn't take it far enough to cover all the bases. Whether the spec is braindead w.r.t intervals or not, Postgres is clearly giving the wrong answer. A year interval is not 360 day intervals long. A month interval is not shorter than 31 day intervals. And, thanks to the geniuses who came up with DST, a day interval is not the same as 24 hour intervals anymore. None of these comparisons are sane. Regards, BJ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq