From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Oddity with extract microseconds? |
Date: | 2005-12-07 15:37:19 |
Message-ID: | 439701AF.1060202@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>>> Why aren't 'minutes' considered too? Because they aren't 'seconds'.
>>> Well, seconds aren't microseconds either.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, they are: it's just one field. The other way of looking at it
>> (that everything is seconds) is served by "extract(epoch)".
>
>
> Well, it's different in MySQL unfortunately - what does the standard
> say? Out of interest, can someone try this for me in MySQL 5:
>
> SELECT EXTRACT (MICROSECOND FROM '2003-01-02 10:30:00.00123');
> SELECT EXTRACT (MICROSECOND FROM '2003-01-02 10:30:10.00123');
mysql 4.1.5 gives back 123 in both cases. I assume they haven't changed
that, although anything is possible.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Lamar Owen | 2005-12-07 16:53:35 | Re: About my new work at Command Prompt Inc. |
Previous Message | Devrim GUNDUZ | 2005-12-07 14:37:16 | About my new work at Command Prompt Inc. |