Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 09:39:38 -0400,
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote:
>> 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?
This sort of question is exactly why the entire change was a bad idea.
No one will ever read any of those macros without stopping to look at
the macro definition, which makes them a net readability loss, not gain.
regards, tom lane
