| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Oddity with extract microseconds? |
| Date: | 2005-12-07 03:03:13 |
| Message-ID: | 439650F1.4050901@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> mysql> SELECT EXTRACT(MICROSECOND FROM '2003-01-02 10:30:01.00123');
> +-------------------------------------------------------+
> | EXTRACT(MICROSECOND FROM '2003-01-02 10:30:01.00123') |
> +-------------------------------------------------------+
> | 1230 |
> +-------------------------------------------------------+
> 1 row in set (0.00 sec)
>
> Does contrary behavior from MySQL count as evidence that PostgreSQL's
> behavior is correct? :-)
No...I happen to think that their way is more consistent though. Pity
it's not in the spec.
At least PostgreSQL is consistent with seconds/microseconds:
mysql=# select extract(seconds from timestamp '2005-01-01 00:00:01.01');
date_part
-----------
1.01
(1 row)
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-07 03:19:44 | Re: row is too big: size 8916, maximum size 8136 |
| Previous Message | Michael Fuhr | 2005-12-07 02:53:37 | Re: Oddity with extract microseconds? |