From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | o(dot)bousche(at)krohne(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #6424: Possible error in time to seconds conversion |
Date: | 2012-02-01 16:24:33 |
Message-ID: | CAHyXU0yb4B_t3Ojr0pohWqzStkGroPs4pgjEwGJ062rS7VxeMQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> o(dot)bousche(at)krohne(dot)com writes:
>> Should the query
>
>> select
>> extract(epoch
>> from cast('2012-01-01 14:30:1' as
>> timestamp) -
>> cast('1970-01-01 0:0:0' as
>> timestamp))) -
>> extract(epoch
>> from (cast('2012-01-01 14:30:1' as
>> timestamp)))
>
>> return 0 instead of 3600?
>
> Well, right now it's operating as designed, because extract(epoch,
> timestamp without timezone) tries to rotate the timestamp from local
> time to GMT so that "epoch 0" corresponds to midnight GMT 1970-01-01.
> (I presume that you are in a GMT+1 timezone.)
>
> Changing that behavior is one of the possible solutions to the problem
> being discussed over here:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2012-01/msg00649.php
> but I don't believe we have any consensus yet about whether that
> would be a good idea.
TBH, I think the behavior of the example given is 100% correct *if a
timezone isn't specified', which the OP didn't. It's only weird if
you do this:
postgres=# select extract(epoch from '2012-01-01 14:30:1'::timestamp -
'1970-01-01 0:0:0 GMT'::timestamp)
- extract(epoch from '2012-01-01 14:30:1'::timestamp);
which really boils down to this:
postgres=# select extract(epoch from '1970-01-01 0:0:0 GMT'::timestamp);
date_part
-----------
21600
(1 row)
which is what seems busted to me.
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-02-01 16:40:08 | Re: BUG #6424: Possible error in time to seconds conversion |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-02-01 16:19:37 | Re: BUG #6200: standby bad memory allocations on SELECT |