Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Based on that, I guess I have to change my vote: justify_hours should
> >> still not look at the month (because it shouldn't use the month=30days
> >> assumption), but justify_days should be changed to be effectively a
> >> combination of both functions --- that is, it should fix all three
> >> fields using both the 30days and the 24hours assumptions. Then it could
> >> guarantee that all come out with the same sign.
>
> > If we do that, we should just call it justify_interval(). I am thinking
> > this is the direction to go, and for people who want more control they
> > use the justify_hours and justify_days, and those are left unchanged.
>
> Well, the question is whether justify_days has a sane definition that is
> different from this. Based on your example, I'm not seeing one.
Uh, justify days only deals with days <--> months conversions. There is
no processing for hours. I don't understand your comment.
-- 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. +