Yes, that's a much more clever solution than the one I used. Thanks
Best regards, Luis Sousa
Alexander M. Pravking wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:00:50AM +0100, Luis Sousa wrote:
I worked around this problem returning the difference between the two dates, using extract doy from both.
Anyway, this will cause a bug on my code when changing the year. Any ideas?
Why don't you use the minus operator?
SELECT '2004-05-14 16:00'::timestamp - '2004-02-18 16:00'::timestamp; ?column? ---------- 86 days
Or, if you need the age just in days:
SELECT extract(day from '2004-05-14 16:00'::timestamp - '2004-02-18 16:00'::timestamp); date_part ----------- 86
or
SELECT '2004-05-14 16:00'::date - '2004-02-18 16:00'::date; ?column? ---------- 86
Note that '2004-05-14 16:00'::date is actually '2004-05-14 00:00'::date, so the last two are not always equal.
Tom Lane wrote:
Theodore Petrosky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
wow.... at first I thought I had my head around a leap
year problem so I advanced your query a year....
I think what's going on here is a difference of interpretation about whether an "M months D days" interval means to add the months first or the days first. For instance
2005-02-18 plus 2 months = 2005-04-18, plus 24 days = 2005-05-12
2005-02-18 plus 24 days = 2005-03-14, plus 2 months = 2005-05-14
The timestamp-plus-interval operator is evidently doing addition the first way, but it looks like age() is calculating the difference in a way that implicitly corresponds to the second way.
I have some vague recollection that this has come up before, but I don't recall whether we concluded that age() needs to be changed or not. In any case it's not risen to the top of anyone's to-do list, because I see that age() still acts this way in CVS tip.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
