From: | Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Dario V(dot) Fassi" <software(at)sistemat(dot)com(dot)ar> |
Cc: | pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com, Greg Markham <gmarkham(at)markhamdirect(dot)com>, "pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Timestamp Question |
Date: | 2004-07-12 00:05:44 |
Message-ID: | 40F1D5D8.2000205@opencloud.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
Dario V. Fassi wrote:
> I say that would help a lot if the microseconds part of a timestamp will
> be zero padded to a minimum length of 5 or 6 digits.
>
> Like:
>
> "then most databases can take 2004-07-10 12:59:59.123 as 2004-07-10
> 12:59:59.123000 "
>
> This behavior help is cross (vendor) database operations .
Isn't this done by the driver already when dealing with a
java.sql.Timestamp? Do you have a testcase that shows the problem?
The server itself seems to already handle zero-padding just fine:
> test=> select '2004-07-10 12:59:59.000123'::timestamp(6);
> timestamp
> ----------------------------
> 2004-07-10 12:59:59.000123
> (1 row)
>
> test=> select '2004-07-10 12:59:59.123'::timestamp(6);
> timestamp
> -------------------------
> 2004-07-10 12:59:59.123
> (1 row)
>
>
> test=> select '2004-07-10 12:59:59.123000'::timestamp(6);
> timestamp
> -------------------------
> 2004-07-10 12:59:59.123
> (1 row)
-O
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Markham | 2004-07-12 00:20:20 | Re: Timestamp Question |
Previous Message | Oliver Jowett | 2004-07-11 23:49:52 | Re: Timestamp Question |