Re: Timestamp Question

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  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