| From: | Harald Fuchs <hf0923x(at)protecting(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Oddity with extract microseconds? |
| Date: | 2005-12-07 09:23:13 |
| Message-ID: | 87bqztxnum.fsf@srv.protecting.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
In article <439650F1(dot)4050901(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>,
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
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.
I'd say the comparison with MySQL is useless because MySQL is unable
to store microseconds in a DATETIME or TIMESTAMP column, although you
can extract microseconds from a date/time literal.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Markus Schiltknecht | 2005-12-07 09:23:50 | Re: Replication on the backend |
| Previous Message | J. Andrew Rogers | 2005-12-07 09:04:24 | Re: Replication on the backend |