| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Brent Verner <brent(at)rcfile(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: text -> time cast problem |
| Date: | 2001-12-07 14:20:41 |
| Message-ID: | 29305.1007734841@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Brent Verner <brent(at)rcfile(dot)org> writes:
> This seems fair. Would this approach imply that CURRENT_TIME and
> CURRENT_TIMESTAMP should not apply default precision to their return
> values? Right now, "CURRENT_TIME" is equivalent to "CURRENT_TIME(0)"
> and "CURRENT_TIMESTAMP" eq to "CURRENT_TIMESTAMP(6)".
Yes, I had been thinking that myself, but hadn't got round to mentioning
it to the list yet. (Even if you do accept default precisions for time
& timestamp columns, I can see nothing in the spec that justifies
applying those default precisions to CURRENT_TIME/TIMESTAMP. AFAICS,
the precision of their results when they are given no argument is
just plain not specified.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-12-07 14:24:39 | Re: Second call for platform testing |
| Previous Message | Christof Petig | 2001-12-07 14:16:26 | Re: pg_dump: Sorted output, referential integrity |