Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Timestamp weirdness

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
Cc: Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>,"emergency(dot)shower(at)gmail(dot)com" <emergency(dot)shower(at)gmail(dot)com>,pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Timestamp weirdness
Date: 2005-07-25 03:13:08
Message-ID: 18989.1122261188@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-jdbc
Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> writes:
> On 24-Jul-05, at 7:41 PM, Oliver Jowett wrote:
>> I'm leaning towards using UNKNOWN as the least-bad option for now,  

> Seems like this is the only way to go for now. +1 from me.

I haven't got a better idea either.  Seems like we should cobble this up
and see how badly it fails, at least ;-)

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:From: MinalDate: 2005-07-25 06:38:35
Subject: Accessing functions from JSP code
Previous:From: Dave CramerDate: 2005-07-25 03:06:23
Subject: Re: Timestamp weirdness

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group