> The behavior of timestamp-plus-interval is certainly supported by that > argument, but I'm less convinced about timestamp-minus-timestamp. The > raw result of the timestamp subtraction here is 71 hours (not the normal > 72). Perhaps it should be outputting it that way instead of converting > to "2 days 23 hours", which is arguably inaccurate.
Probably, yes. We added a barrier so that interval is supposed to be years-months | weeks-days | hours-minutes-seconds-ms-ns. However, it sounds like we missed a few cases. Mind you, there's a kind of insurmountable issue with timestamp subtraction, where you can come up with *lots* of cases where timestamp subtraction is not reversable due to the way we handle intervalization. Realistically, we'd need to have something like a ts_sub( tstz, tstz, interval ) function to have a 100% reversible option. That probably contributes to why Oracle has never supported timestamp - timestamp. -- 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
