| From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | noy <noyda(at)isoco(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Lockhart <thomas(at)fourpalms(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Date precision problem |
| Date: | 2002-04-18 02:25:04 |
| Message-ID: | 3CBE2E80.1127C4DA@fourpalms.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
...
> This is all the sequence to obtain the error. ACCESS includes in the where
> clause "last_update" = '2002-04-17 16:40:44.548' and postgres has '2002-04-17
> 16:40:44.548177+02' These two dates are different and the row is not updated
> because there is not matching row.
So how did Access decide that it had a three digit fractional seconds
field? afaik neither PostgreSQL nor its ODBC driver are truncating the
time.
If you need to constrain times to have a limited precision, you might
try defining things as (in this case) "timestamp(3)" rather than just
"timestamp". And perhaps others have some experience in tweaking Access
to give you, uh, access to the data you have.
- Thomas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-04-18 02:38:37 | Re: Performance Tuning Document? |
| Previous Message | Mike Castle | 2002-04-18 01:09:21 | Re: size of NULL field? |