Re: Selecting timestamp from Database

From: Daniele Varrazzo <daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Richard Harley <richard(at)scholarpack(dot)com>
Cc: Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Selecting timestamp from Database
Date: 2013-04-08 15:28:03
Message-ID: CA+mi_8YKL68ersZhVwgH8Qpk1-5jR0+0FQpr4Fsov-sYB9cxRA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Richard Harley <richard(at)scholarpack(dot)com> wrote:
>
> That returns nothings also. But I have spied the problem now:
>
> select ATTENDANCE.timestamp::text from attendance order by timestamp desc
> limit 1
>
> return the actual timestamp: 2013-04-08 12:42:40.089952
>
> So the theory I'm wondering about is that the stored data in fact
> contains (some values with) fractional seconds, but Richard's
> client-side software isn't bothering to show those, misleading him
> into entering values that don't actually match the stored data.
> Looking at the table directly with psql would prove it one way
> or the other.
>
> This is it. It was the psycopg adapter. My bad!!

This message can be misread as psycopg dropping the fractional part of
the timestamp, which is not the case:

>>> cur.execute("select '2013-04-08 12:42:40.089952'::timestamp")
>>> cur.fetchone()[0]
datetime.datetime(2013, 4, 8, 12, 42, 40, 89952)

Just FYI.

-- Daniele

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Sabino Mullane 2013-04-08 15:35:40 Re: PostgreSQL Downgrades
Previous Message ROBERT KLAUS 2013-04-08 15:26:35 Are partitions getting pruned?