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

Re: Re: time + date_part oddness?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>
Cc: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: time + date_part oddness?
Date: 2001-01-05 07:16:09
Message-ID: 6970.978678969@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> writes:
> I'd assume that it should be using fractional seconds only, just like
> timestamp_part() does. Any reason not to change it for 7.1?

Agreed.

> btw, what should 'microseconds' return? It suffers from the problems
> mentioned already, plus leaves the "milliseconds" part in the result.
> That should probably only return the pieces which are less than a
> millisecond...

Hm.  I'd venture to disagree.  People are used to breaking down time
into hours-minutes-seconds, but I never heard of anyone expressing
a measurement as so many milliseconds plus so many microseconds.

I'd vote for making 'milliseconds' produce 'fractional second times 10^3'
and 'microseconds' produce 'fractional second times 10^6'.  You wouldn't
use both together, just whichever seemed appropriate for the precision
of your data.

			regards, tom lane

PS: "fourpalms.org" ?

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2001-01-05 07:24:45
Subject: Re: Missing ColLabel tokens
Previous:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2001-01-05 06:49:36
Subject: Re: time + date_part oddness?

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