"Andrew Hammond" <andrew.george.hammond@gmail.com> writes:
> On 5/17/07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> What are the grounds for defining it that way rather than some other
>> way?
> The only alternative that came to mind when I wrote it was using a numeric
> instead of float.
No, I'm wondering what's the justification for smashing it to a single
number at all, when the inputs are three-field values. Interval divided
by float doesn't produce just a float, for example.
regards, tom lane
