From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Brent Verner <brent(at)rcfile(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: text -> time cast problem |
Date: | 2001-12-29 05:10:12 |
Message-ID: | 200112290510.fBT5AC614865@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > > This seems fair. Would this approach imply that CURRENT_TIME and
> > > CURRENT_TIMESTAMP should not apply default precision to their return
> > > values? Right now, "CURRENT_TIME" is equivalent to "CURRENT_TIME(0)"
> > > and "CURRENT_TIMESTAMP" eq to "CURRENT_TIMESTAMP(6)".
> > Yes, I had been thinking that myself, but hadn't got round to mentioning
> > it to the list yet. (Even if you do accept default precisions for time
> > & timestamp columns, I can see nothing in the spec that justifies
> > applying those default precisions to CURRENT_TIME/TIMESTAMP. AFAICS,
> > the precision of their results when they are given no argument is
> > just plain not specified.)
>
> I'll shift the default precisions of CURRENT_TIME to match that of
> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, which is currently six (6). As you might know, 7.2
> has sub-second system time available, which was not true in previous
> releases. But that time is only good to microseconds, so the six digits
> of precision is a good match for that.
Is this all resolved?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-12-29 05:22:28 | Re: pg_regress.sh overrides PGPORT |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-12-29 05:08:12 | Re: Problem (bug?) with like |