From: | David Hartwig <daveh(at)insightdist(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Regression test status (was type coersion) |
Date: | 1998-08-26 19:04:09 |
Message-ID: | 35E45C29.2D25FD42@insightdist.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> > These results are also correct. Somewhat. I do not know much about
> > datatime porting issues, but if I do a:
> > SELECT d1 FROM DATETIME_TBL
> > I get time reported to the 1/100 of a second. If GROUP BY d1 the
> > hundredths are not shown. Thus, the counts and groupings are correct.
> > Its just not showing the hundredths portion.
>
> The issue here is why you (or whoever it was prepared the regression
> test) got different results from me...
>
I do get the same results - on my RS/6000. And I did not prepare the
test. But, to be more precise:
1. The failure does not indicate any problems w/ the HAVING clause.
2. This test will never work if there is a machine dependence on the
ability to resolve datatime down to the 1/100 second.
3. There appears to be something strange going on in the way GROUPed BY
datetime columns do not display the 1/100 portion of seconds. Is this a
known problem?
Unless someone objects, I will submit a test suit to, at least remove the
false reading on select_having.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Keith Parks | 1998-08-26 19:27:54 | pg_attribute typo?? |
Previous Message | Michael Meskes | 1998-08-26 18:29:49 | Re: [HACKERS] getopts include? |