From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | michael(dot)oeztuerk(at)haufe(dot)de |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #1768: to_char result of an interval differs between 7.x and 8.x |
Date: | 2005-07-14 20:57:07 |
Message-ID: | 20050714205707.GJ19778@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 08:01:11AM +0100, michael(dot)oeztuerk(at)haufe(dot)de wrote:
> When using the following SQL statement the result of a 8.0.3 seems to be
> wrong.
>
> Statement: "select to_char(interval '15h 2m 12s', 'YYYYMMDD HH24:MI:SS')"
> Result of a 8.0.3: "00010000 15:02:12"
> The error in the Result is that it´s "one year behind".
Yeah, it's strange:
alvherre=# select to_char(interval '15h 2m 12s', 'YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS');
to_char
---------------------
0001-00-00 15:02:12
(1 fila)
alvherre=# select to_char(interval '15h 2m 12s', 'CCYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS');
to_char
---------------------
0101-00-00 15:02:12
(1 fila)
alvherre=# select version();
version
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PostgreSQL 8.1devel on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC) 3.3.6 (Debian 1:3.3.6-7)
(1 fila)
On 7.4 however the year stays at 0, but centuries seem wrong too:
alvherre=# select to_char(interval '15h 2m 12s', 'CCYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS');
to_char
---------------------
0100-00-00 15:02:12
(1 row)
alvherre=# select version();
version
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PostgreSQL 7.4.6 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC) 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-12)
(1 row)
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]alvh.no-ip.org>)
"The problem with the future is that it keeps turning into the present"
(Hobbes)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2005-07-15 00:30:08 | BUG #1770: Composite type dependency broken |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-07-14 18:35:40 | Re: BUG #1769: pg_dumpall fails to run |