Yes, that's a much more clever solution than the one I used.
Thanks
Best regards,
Luis Sousa
Alexander M. Pravking wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:00:50AM +0100, Luis Sousa wrote:
>
>
>>I worked around this problem returning the difference between the two
>>dates, using extract doy from both.
>>Anyway, this will cause a bug on my code when changing the year. Any ideas?
>>
>>
>
>Why don't you use the minus operator?
>
>SELECT '2004-05-14 16:00'::timestamp - '2004-02-18 16:00'::timestamp;
> ?column?
>----------
> 86 days
>
>Or, if you need the age just in days:
>
>SELECT extract(day from '2004-05-14 16:00'::timestamp - '2004-02-18 16:00'::timestamp);
> date_part
>-----------
> 86
>
>or
>
>SELECT '2004-05-14 16:00'::date - '2004-02-18 16:00'::date;
> ?column?
>----------
> 86
>
>Note that '2004-05-14 16:00'::date is actually '2004-05-14 00:00'::date,
>so the last two are not always equal.
>
>
>
>
>>Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Theodore Petrosky <tedpet5@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>wow.... at first I thought I had my head around a leap
>>>>year problem so I advanced your query a year....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I think what's going on here is a difference of interpretation about
>>>whether an "M months D days" interval means to add the months first
>>>or the days first. For instance
>>>
>>>2005-02-18 plus 2 months = 2005-04-18, plus 24 days = 2005-05-12
>>>
>>>2005-02-18 plus 24 days = 2005-03-14, plus 2 months = 2005-05-14
>>>
>>>The timestamp-plus-interval operator is evidently doing addition the
>>>first way, but it looks like age() is calculating the difference in a
>>>way that implicitly corresponds to the second way.
>>>
>>>I have some vague recollection that this has come up before, but
>>>I don't recall whether we concluded that age() needs to be changed
>>>or not. In any case it's not risen to the top of anyone's to-do list,
>>>because I see that age() still acts this way in CVS tip.
>>>
>>> regards, tom lane
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
