On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:43:06PM +0100, Piotr Marcinczyk wrote: > > The alternative proposal that's been on the table for awhile (see the > > preceding entry in the TODO list) is to remove the interval_justify_hours > > call in timestamp_mi, which would also have the effect of fixing the > > inconsistency that T1 + (T2 - T1) doesn't necessarily yield T2. And it > > would do that a lot more straightforwardly, with less risk that there's > > still corner cases that would misbehave. > > > > If it's not the T1 + (T2 - T1) issue that's bothering you, perhaps > > you should explain exactly what results you're hoping to get by changing > > this behavior. > > > > In SQL99 "4.7 Datetimes and intervals" I read, that day-time intervals > (I think, that our interval has this type) should have hours in range > 0-23. I suggest to remove preceding entry from TODO list, and not treat > this as alternative. Current behavior is OK. > > Regarding this, we have two options: use session TZ, or wait for > implementation of TZ saved in timestamp field. In my opinion saving TZ > in field doesn't give serious benefits, and it's probable that it will > never be implemented. In this case, using session TZ is sufficient. > > Can You explain, why do You read this proposal as fuzzy? I believe that > using session context is normal in many cases. Maybe I should consider > saving TZ in timestamp once again?
I have remove the TODO item and added an interval subtraction/addition section to the docs for PG 9.4: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/functions-datetime.html The paragraphs being with "When adding an interval value to" and "Subtraction of dates and timestamps can also be complex.". Is there anything more to add there? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers