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.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
