"Martin A. Brooks" <martin(at)antibodymx(dot)net> writes:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 19:02, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ISTM that changing interval's output formatting would create far too
>> many problems to be justifiable for such a purely cosmetic issue.
> I almost entirely agree with you except....
> My current $dayjob is working in an industry where details and aesthetics
> are everything. We will spend thousands of hours of processor time just
> to make sure than the sheen on an animal's fur will suggest "healthy and
> luxuriant" rather than "warm and moist". It's about artistic polish.
> If people are agreeing that this is not the intended, desrired or
> specified output for this function, then make with the polish. It isn't
> the first, and won't be the last, time that something has potentially
> broken compatibility in postgres.
I think possibly you misunderstand the scope of the breakage you're
proposing. This is not about the age() function. It's interval_out()
that's at stake, and so changing this would change the output formatting
for *every* operation that yields intervals. That makes it pretty
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2011-05-23 18:57:27|
|Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #6034: pg_upgrade fails when it
|Previous:||From: Martin A. Brooks||Date: 2011-05-23 18:44:11|
|Subject: Re: BUG #6028: age() function output contracts "months", but
not any other units.|