| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Stuart Brooks <stuartb(at)cat(dot)co(dot)za>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: TIMESTAMP comparison problem |
| Date: | 2008-01-22 17:13:33 |
| Message-ID: | 3623.1201022013@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> writes:
> Well, you can't get better than microsecond precision with timestamps
> in Postgres. And the only way you can rely on that level of precision
> is to compile with --enable-integer-datetimes.
There is more precision in there, but the output routine won't show it
to you. I think the real issue in Stuart's example is that what's being
shown as .746349 is actually .7463494 or something like that. Doing an
extract(epoch) on the stored values might be instructive.
If you don't want to deal with these sorts of issues then yeah, you want
integer timestamps.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Joseph Krogh | 2008-01-23 10:25:44 | ALTER TABLE <mytable> DROP CONSTRAINT IF EXISTS <myconstraint> ? |
| Previous Message | Stuart Brooks | 2008-01-22 12:52:13 | Re: TIMESTAMP comparison problem |