On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> In short, I don't think this is an improvement.
>>> The problem is that 24 or 30 or 60 doesn't really say what it is, while
>>> the macros are self-documenting.
>> Except that they're NOT.
>> Anyone who is reading datetime code will be entirely familiar with the
>> Gregorian calendar (and if they aren't, the macro names you propose are
>> not going to help them). You cannot honestly sit there and say that
>> "365" or "24" isn't going to convey anything to anyone who could
>> usefully read the code in the first place.
>>> What we can do is to rename them to AVG_* macros so it is clear it is
>> But still not clear which approximation is being used. And in most
>> places where this might be used, that matters.
> Well, if you want to see the approximation, look at the macro value. At
> least with AVG we are documenting it is an approximation, and are doing
> it consistently.
Make it APPROX_ vs AVG_ then ...
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
In response to
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: User Dpage||Date: 2005-07-23 19:05:03|
|Subject: pginstaller - pginst: Start tweaking things for 8.1|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2005-07-23 15:31:16|
|Subject: pgsql: Remove unintended code addition.|