Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > I don't think we can accept a change that takes a negative and turns it > > into a positive and negative. > > Yeah, I find the patch's changes to the regression results pretty > disturbing. > > Perhaps the correct definition ought to be like "if month part >= 0 > then the reduced day part should be between 0 and 30, otherwise the > reduced day part should be between 0 and -30". However there are > still corner cases to worry about. If the original month and day > parts are of different sign, you might not be able to do such a > reduction without changing the sign of the month part, consider > "1 month -95 days". Not clear what to do with this. > > I guess I would expect a good result to satisfy one of these three > cases: > * month > 0 and 0 <= day < 30 > * month < 0 and -30 < day <= 0 > * month = 0 and -30 < day < 30 > If you believe that then "1 month -95 days" should justify to > "-2 months -5 days".
I believe it. :-) -- 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
