On 08/01/2014 05:32 PM, David G Johnston wrote:
> Any supporting arguments for 1-10 = 1st decade other than technical
> perfection?  I guess if you use data around and before 1AD you care about
> this more, and rightly so, but given sound arguments for both methods the
> one more useful to more users who I suspect dominantly care about years >
> 1900.

Well, I think most people in casual speech would consider "The 80's" to
be 1980 to 1989.  But if you ask a historian, the decade is 1981 to 1990
(or, if they're an American social historian, 1981 to 1988, but that's a
different topic).  So both ways of counting have valid, solid arguments
behind them.

> So -1 to change for breaking backward compatibility and -1 because the
> current behavior seems to be more useful in everyday usage.

If we were adding a new "decade" feature, then I'd probably side with
Mike.  However, it's hard for me to believe that this change is worth
breaking backwards compatibility.

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to