Re: timestamp format bug

"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 9:34 AM, in message
> <1A6E6D554222284AB25ABE3229A92762715521(at)nrtexcus702(dot)int(dot)asurion(dot)com>, "Roberts,
> Jon" <Jon(dot)Roberts(at)asurion(dot)com> wrote:
>> These two fields should be consistent because they should be formatted
>> the same way.

> Why would you think that?

Indeed the whole *point* of to_char() is to display the value in a
different format than the type's standard output converter would use.

I think it'd be a reasonable complaint that to_char() offers no way
to control how many fractional-second digits you get in its output;
but that's a missing feature not a bug.

> I can think of a couple database products which only go to three
> decimal positions, and always show three, but that's hardly a
> standard.

Considering that to_char() is intended to be compatible with *r*cl*e,
if that's what they do then we may be stuck with doing the same.

regards, tom lane