From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "mikael-aronsson" <mikael-aronsson(at)telia(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Boris Kirzner" <borisk(at)mainsoft(dot)com>, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Bug in storing Timestamp |
Date: | 2005-04-11 15:07:27 |
Message-ID: | 29958.1113232047@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
"mikael-aronsson" <mikael-aronsson(at)telia(dot)com> writes:
> I have never had any problems with timestamps, if I remember correct the
> resolution gets worse when you get far away from 1900 or so, is it possible
> that using year 0001 gives that bad resolution maybe ?
Good thought, but no; the error at 0001 is still down around the sixth
decimal place:
regression=# select '0001-01-01 02:02:02.123456'::timestamp;
timestamp
----------------------------
0001-01-01 02:02:02.123459
(1 row)
I was wondering about the fact that he was storing into a time column
rather than a timestamp. That works if the conversion is done on the
server, modulo the sixth decimal place again:
regression=# select '0001-01-01 02:02:02.123456'::timestamp::time;
time
-----------------
02:02:02.123459
(1 row)
but maybe it's confusing the JDBC driver into doing the wrong thing
entirely.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joost Kraaijeveld | 2005-04-11 20:32:42 | JBoss, PostgreSQL and XDoclets question |
Previous Message | mikael-aronsson | 2005-04-11 14:57:57 | Re: Bug in storing Timestamp |