From: | Peter Mount <petermount(at)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | "'pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: RE: JDBC Timestamp Problem |
Date: | 2000-12-12 09:10:21 |
Message-ID: | 1B3D5E532D18D311861A00600865478CF1B64D@exchange1.nt.maidstone.gov.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-interfaces |
Yes, about 1-2 months ago ;-) The current CVS has the patch applied.
As soon as I get the domain problems sorted, I'm going to tripple check
Timestamp as I'd like to see the next release without the timestamp bug
reappearing...
Peter
--
Peter Mount
Enterprise Support Officer, Maidstone Borough Council
Email: petermount(at)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk
WWW: http://www.maidstone.gov.uk
All views expressed within this email are not the views of Maidstone Borough
Council
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Kachnowich [mailto:khkachn(at)madweed(dot)ncsc(dot)mil]
> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 5:30 PM
> To: pgsql-interfaces
> Subject: [INTERFACES] RE: JDBC Timestamp Problem
>
>
> I ran into a Timestamp problem a while back. The Postgres back end
> seems to return 2 digits for the milliseconds when the JDBC
> is expecting
>
> 3 digits (and 3 digits is correct).
>
> I am not sure if this has already been fixed or reported or even if it
> is the
> real problem at all.
>
> Does anyone know where I could checked to see if a patch is availalbe
> for this?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ken
>
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Mount | 2000-12-12 09:13:20 | RE: JDBC Drop/Create problem? |
Previous Message | Luis Zarza | 2000-12-11 23:10:57 | ODBC and Postgres large objects |