| From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Imprecision of DAYS_PER_MONTH |
| Date: | 2005-07-21 14:09:34 |
| Message-ID: | 20050721140934.GB21293@wolff.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 09:39:38 -0400,
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> I have added this comment above the DAYS_PER_MONTH macro:
>
> + /*
> + * DAYS_PER_MONTH is very imprecise. The more accurate value is
> + * 365.25/12 = 30.4375, or '30 days 10:30:00'. Right now we only
> + * return an integral number of days, but someday perhaps we should
> + * also return a 'time' value to be used as well.
> + */
> #define DAYS_PER_MONTH 30 /* assumes exactly 30 days per month */
>
> Let me add that we could actually do this in many places now because we
> are already converting to 'time' in those places. Is this a TODO?
Shouldn't you be using 365.2425/12 (30.436875) for the number of days per
month?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-07-21 14:19:42 | Re: Imprecision of DAYS_PER_MONTH |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-07-21 14:03:53 | Re: recover corrupted pg_controldata from WAL |