On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
In short, I don't think this is an improvement.
The problem is that 24 or 30 or 60 doesn't really say what it is, while
the macros are self-documenting.
Except that they're NOT.
Anyone who is reading datetime code will be entirely familiar with the
Gregorian calendar (and if they aren't, the macro names you propose are
not going to help them). You cannot honestly sit there and say that
"365" or "24" isn't going to convey anything to anyone who could
usefully read the code in the first place.
What we can do is to rename them to AVG_* macros so it is clear it is
approximate.
But still not clear which approximation is being used. And in most
places where this might be used, that matters.
Well, if you want to see the approximation, look at the macro value. At
least with AVG we are documenting it is an approximation, and are doing
it consistently.
Make it APPROX_ vs AVG_ then ...
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
