Re: Unhappiness with forced precision conversion

We use timestamps and intervals quite a bit in our applications. We
also use several different databases. Unfortunately, the time/date/
interval area is one that is not at all consistent between databases.
It makes life particularly difficult when trying to re-use application
code.

So far, as compared to many other databases, PostgreSQL, remains
pretty close to the standard (at least for our projects). The only
areas that we have had issues with is the default inclusion of the
timezone information when retriving the timestamp information and the
slightly non-standard interval literal notation (i.e., including the
year-month or day-time interval information inside the single quotes
with the literal string).

My vote on all datetime questions is to stick strictly to the
standard.

Of course sticking to the standard is not always easy as the standard
is not always clear or even consistent. (I'm only familiar with ANSI
92 not ANSI 99.) Time zones in particular seem to be problematic.

In this case, I believe that it would be preferable to stick with the
TIME(0) and TIMESTAMP(6) default precision. In our applications, we
always specify the precision, so, the default precision is not a real
concern for us, however, for portability, I still suggest sticking
with the standard.

Thanks,
F Harvell

On Thu, 04 Oct 2001 20:30:24 -0000, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> > The code asserts that SQL99 requires the default precision to be zero,
> > but I do not agree with that reading. What I find is in 6.1:
> > 30) If <time precision> is not specified, then 0 (zero) is implicit.
> > If <timestamp precision> is not specified, then 6 is implicit.
> > so at the very least you'd need two different settings for TIME and
> > TIMESTAMP. But we don't enforce the spec's idea of default precision
> > for char, varchar, or numeric, so why start doing so with timestamp?
>
> Sure, I'd forgotten about the 6 vs 0 differences. Easy to put back in.
> One of course might wonder why the spec *makes* them different.
>
> "Why start doing so with timestamp?". SQL99 compliance for one thing ;)
>
> I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the spec behavior, but without a
> discussion I wasn't comfortable implementing it another way.
>
> > Essentially, what I want is for gram.y to set typmod to -1 when it
> > doesn't see a "(N)" decoration on TIME/TIMESTAMP. I think everything
> > works correctly after that.
>
> "... works correctly..." == "... works the way we'd like...". Right?
>
> This is the start of the discussion I suppose. And I *expected* a
> discussion like this, since SQL99 seems a bit ill-tempered on this
> precision business. We shouldn't settle on a solution with just two of
> us, and I guess I'd like to hear from folks who have applications (the
> larger the better) who would care about this. Even better if their app
> had been running on some *other* DBMS. Anyone?
>
> - Thomas