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@telsasoft.com 
> <mailto:pryzby@telsasoft.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