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?
> 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
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
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Thomas Lockhart||Date: 2001-01-05 07:24:45|
|Subject: Re: Missing ColLabel tokens|
|Previous:||From: Thomas Lockhart||Date: 2001-01-05 06:49:36|
|Subject: Re: time + date_part oddness?|