From: | Martin Marques <martin(at)bugs(dot)unl(dot)edu(dot)ar> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | ivan <iv(at)psycho(dot)pl>, Kurt Roeckx <Q(at)ping(dot)be>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: time format |
Date: | 2004-01-05 03:50:02 |
Message-ID: | 1073274602.3ff8deeaeeeb5@bugs.unl.edu.ar |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Quoting Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Martin Marques <martin(at)bugs(dot)unl(dot)edu(dot)ar> writes:
> > Look deeper into what Christopher said and use casting to get the right
> > output:
> > prueba=> select now()::timestamp(0);
>
> There's also "current_timestamp(0)", which is a more standards-compliant
> way of doing the same thing.
Didn´t know that existed. :-)
Anyway, my observation was not on the now() function, but at the casting. He
wants the output of th select over a timestamp field to come out without the
milliseconds, which is done with the casting.
Now, seeing your mail I realize that what he may want is this:
CREATE TABLE table_name (
.....
time_field timestamp(0)
);
Remember you will lose those milliseconds for ever with this table definition.
--
Porqué usar una base de datos relacional cualquiera,
si podés usar PostgreSQL?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martín Marqués | mmarques(at)unl(dot)edu(dot)ar
Programador, Administrador, DBA | Centro de Telematica
Universidad Nacional
del Litoral
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Treat | 2004-01-05 05:45:43 | Re: Is my MySQL Gaining ? |
Previous Message | A E | 2004-01-05 03:26:23 | Re: Anything akin to an Evaluate Statement in Postgresql? |