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

Re: timestamp format bug

From: "Roberts, Jon" <Jon(dot)Roberts(at)asurion(dot)com>
To: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>,<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: timestamp format bug
Date: 2008-01-31 20:29:50
Message-ID: 1A6E6D554222284AB25ABE3229A9276271552F@nrtexcus702.int.asurion.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Grittner [mailto:Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov]
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 1:47 PM
> To: Roberts, Jon; pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: RE: [HACKERS] timestamp format bug
> 
> >>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 12:45 PM, in message
> <1A6E6D554222284AB25ABE3229A92762715527(at)nrtexcus702(dot)int(dot)asurion(dot)com>,
> "Roberts,
> Jon" <Jon(dot)Roberts(at)asurion(dot)com> wrote:
> 
> > So on your db, run this query:
> > select sub.t1, to_char(t1, 'yyyy-mm-dd hh24:mi:ss.us') as char_t1
> > from
> > (
> > select timestamp'2008-01-31 12:31:40.500000' as t1
> > ) sub
> >
> >
> > I bet you get this:
> > "2008-01-31 12:31:40.50";"2008-01-31 12:31:40.500000"
> 
>            t1           |          char_t1
> ------------------------+----------------------------
>  2008-01-31 12:31:40.50 | 2008-01-31 12:31:40.500000
> (1 row)
> 
> > Don't you think it should have two identical columns?
> 
> No.  Why should the return value of a function influence the input?
> 


This is clearly a bug.  Don't fix it.  I don't care.


Jon


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Gurjeet SinghDate: 2008-01-31 22:30:49
Subject: <IDLE> and waiting
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2008-01-31 20:00:23
Subject: Re: timestamp format bug

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