| From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Mount <petermount(at)it(dot)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | "'Chris Ryan'" <chris(at)greatbridge(dot)com>, pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: JDBC and Timestamps |
| Date: | 2000-08-05 23:30:10 |
| Message-ID: | 398CA382.390904BB@alumni.caltech.edu |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-interfaces |
> ... I'm noticing problems with the timestamp fields. The JDBC
> driver when writing a Timestamp value to postgres is passing the value
> to the backend as a String in the following format "yyyy-mm-dd
> hh:mm:ss.fffffffff" <-- the last part .fffffffff is nanosecs.
Do you actually need nanosecond (or sub-microsecond) resolution? At the
moment, Postgres rounds internal values *and* truncates printed results
to avoid accumulating internal roundoff errors. But I did that pretty
conservatively, rather than actually testing to see if it could carry
more precision.
If you want to test with more precision, we could try some variations...
- Thomas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Geoff Healey | 2000-08-06 11:29:33 | removal from mailing list |
| Previous Message | Peter Mount | 2000-08-05 13:20:00 | RE: JDBC and Timestamps |