From: | "Frank Church" <voipfc(at)googlemail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Alban Hertroys" <alban(at)magproductions(dot)nl> |
Cc: | "Michael Glaesemann" <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Syntax for converting double to a timestamp |
Date: | 2006-09-04 18:10:57 |
Message-ID: | 84b7c6460609041110p4cd0ebfds263e0d87a702cb38@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 9/4/06, Alban Hertroys <alban(at)magproductions(dot)nl> wrote:
> Michael Glaesemann wrote:
> > Note that epoch does not mean 1900-01-01 00:00:00.
>
select *, timestamp 'EPOCH' + "timestamp" * interval '1 second' as
tstamp from ccmanager_log where id > 15400
select *, timestamp '1900-01-01 00:00:00' + "timestamp" * (interval
'1 second') from ccmanager_log where id > 15400
I tried both of these and the worked - but them timestamp '1900-01-01
00:00:00' gives dates that are 70 years of so it should be
'1970-01-01 00:00:00'
The sheer guruhood of PostgreSQL users is amazing.
Which topics in the manual discusses these issues in depth?
> 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 //
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Murtagh | 2006-09-04 18:42:45 | Re: Array comparison - subset |
Previous Message | Robert Bernier | 2006-09-04 17:09:10 | Re: On Certification (was Re: [GENERAL] Thought provoking piece on NetBSD) |