From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Timestamp, fractional seconds problem |
Date: | 2001-10-04 21:02:02 |
Message-ID: | 3BBCCE4A.B1AE201F@fourpalms.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc |
> > ... then trailing zeros are hacked out,
> > two digits at a time.
> I was wondering why it seemed to always want to produce an even number
> of fractional digits. Why are you doing it 2 at a time and not 1?
> I should think timestamp(1) would produce 1 fractional digit, not
> two digits of which the second is always 0 ...
Hmm. Good point wrt timestamp(1). I hack out two digits at a time to get
convergence on a behavior consistant with previous releases of having
(at least) two digits of precision (not one or three). I was trying to
minimize the impact of the other changes.
Note that another "arbitrary difference" is that, by default, TIMESTAMP
is actually TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE. SQL99 specifies otherwise, but
there would seem to be fewer porting and upgrade issues for 7.2 if we
choose the current behavior.
Not sure where pg_dump and other utilities gin up the SQL9x type names,
but we should fix things during beta to be consistant.
- Thomas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Lamar Owen | 2001-10-04 21:18:29 | Re: cvs problem |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-10-04 20:48:37 | Re: Timestamp, fractional seconds problem |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-10-04 21:32:14 | Re: Timestamp, fractional seconds problem |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-10-04 20:48:37 | Re: Timestamp, fractional seconds problem |