| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> | 
| Cc: | Postgres <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: date_part()/EXTRACT(second) behaviour with time data type | 
| Date: | 2009-07-29 16:15:42 | 
| Message-ID: | 19958.1248884142@sss.pgh.pa.us | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
Gregory Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> I think we broke date_part for extracting seconds from time arguments. It
> appears we leave out the milliseconds whereas we don't for timestamp
> arguments. This was not the case in 8.3 where we included the milliseconds for
> both data types.
It's not new.  This appears to be a difference between the integer and
float timestamp code paths, and I'd say it's probably a thinko:
            case DTK_SECOND:
#ifdef HAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP
                result = tm->tm_sec + fsec / USECS_PER_SEC;
#else
                result = tm->tm_sec + fsec;
#endif
                break;
In the integer case, fsec is an integer and so the division loses the
fraction.  timestamptz_part does this instead:
            case DTK_SECOND:
#ifdef HAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP
                result = tm->tm_sec + fsec / 1000000.0;
#else
                result = tm->tm_sec + fsec;
#endif
                break;
I agree that we should change it, but should we back-patch it, and if so
how far?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Euler Taveira de Oliveira | 2009-07-29 16:23:22 | Re: WIP: to_char, support for EEEE format | 
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-07-29 15:53:02 | Re: xpath not a good replacement for xpath_string |