From: | "Uwe C(dot) Schroeder" <uwe(at)oss4u(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)list(dot)coretech(dot)ro" <pgsql-general(at)list(dot)coretech(dot)ro> |
Subject: | Re: time value '24:00:00' |
Date: | 2006-11-02 04:37:58 |
Message-ID: | 200611012037.59087.uwe@oss4u.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
why don't you just use < '00:00:00'::time
and avoid the issue?
IMHO there shouldn't even be a 24:00:00, because that would imply that there
is a 24:00:01 - which there is not.
It should go from 23:59 to 00:00
But then, I didn't write the spec for time in general, so maybe there is a
24:00 which is identical to 00:0=
UC
On Wednesday 01 November 2006 13:15, pgsql-general(at)list(dot)coretech(dot)ro wrote:
> hello,
>
> can the the current time family functions (CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, LOCALTIME,
> etc) reach the '24:00:00' value ?
>
> I want to compare LOCALTIME <= '24:00:00'::TIME and I am curios to know
> if LOCALTIME < '24:00:00'::TIME is sufficient.
>
>
> thanks,
> razvan radu
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
--
Open Source Solutions 4U, LLC 1618 Kelly St
Phone: +1 707 568 3056 Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Cell: +1 650 302 2405 United States
Fax: +1 707 568 6416
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martin Kuria | 2006-11-02 05:43:51 | Re: Grouping My query |
Previous Message | Ritesh Nadhani | 2006-11-02 02:46:32 | Re: Compiling/Installing as a non-admin user |