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

Re: timestamp format bug

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Jon Roberts" <Jon(dot)Roberts(at)asurion(dot)com>,<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: timestamp format bug
Date: 2008-01-31 15:48:13
Message-ID: 47A1995D.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
>>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at  9:34 AM, in message
<1A6E6D554222284AB25ABE3229A92762715521(at)nrtexcus702(dot)int(dot)asurion(dot)com>, "Roberts,
Jon" <Jon(dot)Roberts(at)asurion(dot)com> wrote: 
> select to_char(date, 'yyyy-mm-dd hh24:mi:ss.ms') as char, 
>        date 
>   from (select timestamp'2008-01-30 15:06:21.560' as date) sub
> 
> "2008-01-30 15:06:21.560";"2008-01-30 15:06:21.56"
> 
> These two fields should be consistent because they should be formatted
> the same way.
 
Why would you think that?
 
I would expect the timestamp to be presented with one to nine
digits to the right of the decimal point, depending on the value.
 
I can think of a couple database products which only go to three
decimal positions, and always show three, but that's hardly a
standard.
 
-Kevin
 



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Hubert FONGARNANDDate: 2008-01-31 15:50:14
Subject: Re: BUG: type of "xxxx" does not match that whenpreparing the plan
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-01-31 15:35:08
Subject: Re: BUG: type of "xxxx" does not match that when preparing the plan

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