Re: BUG #5728: Unexpected behavior comparing result of age() to an interval

"Dobes Vandermeer" <dobes(dot)vandermeer(at)kashoo(dot)com> writes:
> Seeing some surprising behavior with the use of age() and comparing the
> result to an interval:

> select current_date,
> age(current_date - interval '123 days') <= interval '120 days',
> age(current_date - interval '122 days') <= interval '120 days',
> age(current_date - interval '121 days') <= interval '120 days',
> age(current_date - interval '120 days') <= interval '120 days',

It's not that surprising. The actual underlying results (as of today)
are

regression=# select age(current_date - interval '123 days') ;
age
--------------
4 mons 1 day
(1 row)

regression=# select age(current_date - interval '122 days') ;
age
--------
4 mons
(1 row)

regression=# select age(current_date - interval '121 days') ;
age
----------------
3 mons 29 days
(1 row)

regression=# select age(current_date - interval '120 days') ;
age
----------------
3 mons 28 days
(1 row)

which aren't really very comparable to an interval stated as '120 days'.
The interval <= operator does the best it can by assuming that a month
equals 30 days, but of course the particular months underlying the
age() calculation were not that length. Basically you've lost
information when you go from specific dates to a symbolic interval
value.

The point of the age() calculation is to give you something that's
useful in human terms. It isn't necessarily going to work without
any surprises to do further arithmetic with it.

regards, tom lane