Re: age() function documentation - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Lockhart
Subject Re: age() function documentation
Date
Msg-id 3AD481C2.42A00C6@alumni.caltech.edu
Whole thread Raw
In response to age() function documentation  (Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>)
Responses Re: age() function documentation  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
> > <grumble>
> http://www.postgresql.org/mhonarc/pgsql-hackers/2001-02/msg00550.html

OK, so that narrows down the list of suspects ;)

Why do you have a problem with the age() function? It *does* behave
differently than date subtraction, as explicitly mentioned in the docs
(preserving years, etc etc). Would we like some additional clarification
in the docs perhaps? Seems to be preferable to dropping all mention,
especially since it is a useful function.
                  - Thomas


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jean-Eric Cuendet
Date:
Subject: Postgres & Kerberos
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: age() function documentation