| From: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Achilleus Mantzios <achill(at)matrix(dot)gatewaynet(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Pedro B(dot)" <pedro(dot)borracha(at)netcabo(dot)pt>, <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Datetime |
| Date: | 2004-08-03 13:26:14 |
| Message-ID: | B161AE30-E550-11D8-8966-000A95C88220@myrealbox.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
On Aug 3, 2004, at 8:50 PM, Achilleus Mantzios wrote:
> O kyrios Michael Glaesemann egrapse stis Aug 3, 2004 :
>>
>> I believe this is incorrect. I believe PostgreSQL uses its own
>
> Do you suggest postgresql has any other means of getting
> time except the time(2) syscall??
>
>> timestamp datatype internally (which is, indeed, not as text in an
>> easy-to-read form). On my machine (running cvs-head),
No. I'm just saying that PostgreSQL does not represent or store
timestamps as epoch timestamps internally. I don't know for sure how
PostgreSQL gets the current timestamp, and I wouldn't be surprised if
it was via the time(2) syscall.
Michael Glaesemann
grzm myrealbox com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-08-03 15:13:29 | Re: Datetime |
| Previous Message | Achilleus Mantzios | 2004-08-03 11:50:43 | Re: Datetime |