Re: Statistical Lacunae in Interval type

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> The problem is that an interval datum already implies the units, so in
> order to allow interval * interval we would have to add a new type
> "interval squared", which would probably be considered to be a bit
> foolish.

Not only foolish but complicated. Remember that interval internally
is "N months plus X seconds" (where N is integral but X needn't be).
To avoid losing information, a product datatype would have to look
something like "N months-squared plus X months-seconds plus Y
seconds-squared", which offers no intuition whatever about how to
operate on it. I doubt there's even a unique way to define
square-rooting this.

Add on top the fact that we really need to change interval to be
"M months plus N days plus X seconds" to solve the ever-popular
daylight-savings-transition issues, and a product datatype would
get out of hand altogether.

When I said "mash it down to seconds first", I was speaking very
literally...

regards, tom lane