Re: BUG #18348: Inconsistency with EXTRACT([field] from INTERVAL);
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #18348: Inconsistency with EXTRACT([field] from INTERVAL); |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Zr97Pqkx9J_BbZHt@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #18348: Inconsistency with EXTRACT([field] from INTERVAL); (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 12:06:35PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > regression=# select n, extract(quarter from interval '1 mon' * n) from generate_series(-12,12) n; > n | extract > -----+--------- > -12 | 1 > -11 | -2 > -10 | -2 > -9 | -2 Wow, that "1" is weird to see. > which is fine on the positive side but it's hard to describe the > results for negative months as anything but wacko. The v2 patch > gives > > regression=# select n, extract(quarter from interval '1 mon' * n) from generate_series(-12,12) n; > n | extract > -----+--------- > -12 | -1 > -11 | -4 > -10 | -4 > -9 | -4 > -8 | -3 > -7 | -3 > -6 | -3 > -5 | -2 > -4 | -2 > -3 | -2 > -2 | -1 > -1 | -1 > 0 | 1 > 1 | 1 > 2 | 1 > 3 | 2 > 4 | 2 > 5 | 2 > 6 | 3 > 7 | 3 > 8 | 3 > 9 | 4 > 10 | 4 > 11 | 4 > 12 | 1 > (25 rows) > > which is a whole lot saner. So let's run with v2. Yes, that v2 output looks very clean. I had to really dig my head into this so I am not surprised it was confusing to find the right solution. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com Only you can decide what is important to you.
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: