Re: Syntax for converting double to a timestamp

From: Alban Hertroys <alban(at)magproductions(dot)nl>
To: Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, Frank Church <voipfc(at)googlemail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Syntax for converting double to a timestamp
Date: 2006-09-04 10:02:48
Message-ID: 44FBF9C8.8080408@magproductions.nl
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Michael Glaesemann wrote:
> Note that epoch does not mean 1900-01-01 00:00:00.

Indeed! Where did this 1900 sneak in? Aren't timestamps usually based on
epoch?

--
Alban Hertroys
alban(at)magproductions(dot)nl

magproductions b.v.

T: ++31(0)534346874
F: ++31(0)534346876
M:
I: www.magproductions.nl
A: Postbus 416
7500 AK Enschede

// Integrate Your World //

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Bernier 2006-09-04 10:22:35 Re: On Certification (was Re: [GENERAL] Thought provoking piece on NetBSD)
Previous Message Daniel Verite 2006-09-04 09:13:31 Re: Creating a date/time search function in Postgres.