From: | Gunnar R|nning <gunnar(at)candleweb(dot)no> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Problem migrating dump to latest CVS snapshot. |
Date: | 2001-03-23 01:17:03 |
Message-ID: | x6g0g51dyo.fsf@thor.candleweb.no |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Gunnar R|nning <gunnar(at)candleweb(dot)no> writes:
> > ERROR: copy: line 154391, Bad timestamp external representation '2000-10-24 15:14:60.00+02'
>
> BTW, did your original data contain any fractional-second timestamps?
> I'm wondering if the original value might have been something like
> 2000-10-24 15:14:59.999
> in which case sprintf's roundoff of the seconds field to %.2f format
> would've been enough to do the damage.
What do you mean by original value ? The value we have in the production
database ? If so, that shows up as 2000-10-24 15:14:60.00+02 independent of
what platform my client is running on. The production platform was as I
mentioned Solaris 2.7.
The value was generated at the time of a given web request by a Java
servlet and inserted into the database using JDBC. The timestamp in Java is
the number of milliseconds since epoch, so yes it is quite probable that it
contained a fractional second timestamp ;-)
But the problem here then might be with the Solaris 2.7 platform and not
Redhat Linux 6.1 if I am interpreting this right ???
Regards,
Gunnar
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | will trillich | 2001-03-23 01:19:02 | Re: Re: Birthday comparisons |
Previous Message | Limin Liu | 2001-03-23 01:16:50 | SPI example does not work for 7.1beta4 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-03-23 01:24:36 | Re: [HACKERS] SPI example does not work for 7.1beta4 |
Previous Message | Limin Liu | 2001-03-23 01:16:50 | SPI example does not work for 7.1beta4 |