| From: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: roundoff problem in time datatype |
| Date: | 2005-09-26 12:58:54 |
| Message-ID: | 2017792B-EB5B-4275-B771-4AF35599976B@fastcrypt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Actually, I think there is a case where 24:00 is a proper time. Isn't
it used for adding leap seconds ?
Dave
On 26-Sep-05, at 3:39 AM, 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. Another is
> that it
> isn't a proper time, just like feb 31 isn't a proper date.
>
> --
> /Dennis Björklund
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that
> your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-09-26 13:15:14 | Re: roundoff problem in time datatype |
| Previous Message | Michal Jeczalik | 2005-09-26 09:34:40 | Re: "expected authentication request from server, but |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-09-26 13:15:14 | Re: roundoff problem in time datatype |
| Previous Message | Dennis Bjorklund | 2005-09-26 07:39:38 | Re: roundoff problem in time datatype |