Re: truncating timestamps on arbitrary intervals

On 30.03.21 18:50, John Naylor wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 1:06 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com
> <mailto:pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>> wrote:
> >
> > The current docs seem to be missing a "synopsis", like
> >
> > +<synopsis>
> > +date_trunc(<replaceable>stride</replaceable>,
> <replaceable>timestamp</replaceable>, <replaceable>origin</replaceable>)
> > +</synopsis>
>
> The attached
> - adds a synopsis
> - adds a bit more description to the parameters similar to those in
> date_trunc
> - documents that negative intervals are treated the same as positive ones
>
> Note on the last point: This just falls out of the math, so was not
> deliberate, but it seems fine to me. We could ban negative intervals,
> but that would possibly just inconvenience some people unnecessarily. We
> could also treat negative strides differently somehow, but I don't
> immediately see a useful and/or intuitive change in behavior to come of
> that.

committed