On 08/01/2014 05:32 PM, David G Johnston wrote: > Any supporting arguments for 1-10 = 1st decade other than technical > perfection? I guess if you use data around and before 1AD you care about > this more, and rightly so, but given sound arguments for both methods the > one more useful to more users who I suspect dominantly care about years > > 1900.
Well, I think most people in casual speech would consider "The 80's" to be 1980 to 1989. But if you ask a historian, the decade is 1981 to 1990 (or, if they're an American social historian, 1981 to 1988, but that's a different topic). So both ways of counting have valid, solid arguments behind them. > So -1 to change for breaking backward compatibility and -1 because the > current behavior seems to be more useful in everyday usage. If we were adding a new "decade" feature, then I'd probably side with Mike. However, it's hard for me to believe that this change is worth breaking backwards compatibility. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
