| From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | thomas(at)pgsql(dot)com, Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: timestamp resolution? |
| Date: | 2001-10-04 20:17:18 |
| Message-ID: | 3BBCC3CE.5C72EA31@fourpalms.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> No, it's just that CURRENT_TIMESTAMP doesn't presently reduce its
> precision, as you assert it should do. However, I see nothing in SQL99
> 6.19 that asserts anything about the precision of CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
> without a precision indicator. It just says
> 2) If specified, <time precision> and <timestamp precision>
> respectively determine the precision of the time or timestamp
> value returned.
> which seems to leave it up to us to choose the behavior when no
> precision is specified. I'd prefer to see CURRENT_TIMESTAMP return as
> much precision as possible (see also previous message).
Hmm. Somewhere else it *does* specify a precision of zero for TIME and
TIMESTAMP; wonder why that rule wouldn't apply to CURRENT_TIME etc too?
Not that lots of precision isn't good, but I'd like to be consistant.
> BTW, CURRENT_TIME and CURRENT_TIMESTAMP should return TIMETZ and
> TIMESTAMPTZ respectively, but currently do not --- are you fixing that?
Yup. Though I'm not certain that it would effectively be any different.
- Thomas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2001-10-04 20:19:53 | Re: Beta time |
| Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2001-10-04 20:13:17 | Re: [HACKERS] Timestamp, fractional seconds problem |