From: | Jochem van Dieten <jochemd(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: roundoff problem in time datatype |
Date: | 2005-09-26 15:16:41 |
Message-ID: | f96a9b8305092608166df19fa@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On 9/26/05, Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Alternatively: why are we forbidding the value 24:00:00 anyway? Is
>> there a reason not to allow the hours field to exceed 23?
>
> One reason is because it's what the standard demand.
Could you cite that? The only thing I can find in the SQL standard is
that the hour field in an INTERVAL can not exceed 23, not datetimes.
> Another is that it
> isn't a proper time, just like feb 31 isn't a proper date.
IIRC ISO 8601 (to whcih the SQL standard points) says
2005-10-01T24:00:00 is valid (and happens to be the same as
2005-10-02T00:00:00). It does seem a bit inconsistent with the spec of
an interval though.
Jochem
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michal Jeczalik | 2005-09-26 15:32:54 | Re: "expected authentication request from server, but |
Previous Message | Dave Page | 2005-09-26 15:08:47 | Re: Server process exited with unexpected status 128. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-09-26 15:46:47 | Re: roundoff problem in time datatype |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2005-09-26 15:04:13 | Re: roundoff problem in time datatype |