Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > I don't think we can accept a change that takes a negative and turns it
> > into a positive and negative.
>
> Yeah, I find the patch's changes to the regression results pretty
> disturbing.
>
> Perhaps the correct definition ought to be like "if month part >= 0
> then the reduced day part should be between 0 and 30, otherwise the
> reduced day part should be between 0 and -30". However there are
> still corner cases to worry about. If the original month and day
> parts are of different sign, you might not be able to do such a
> reduction without changing the sign of the month part, consider
> "1 month -95 days". Not clear what to do with this.
>
> I guess I would expect a good result to satisfy one of these three
> cases:
> * month > 0 and 0 <= day < 30
> * month < 0 and -30 < day <= 0
> * month = 0 and -30 < day < 30
> If you believe that then "1 month -95 days" should justify to
> "-2 months -5 days".
I believe it. :-)
-- Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us SRA OSS, Inc. http://www.sraoss.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +