| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Oddity with extract microseconds? |
| Date: | 2005-12-07 01:43:30 |
| Message-ID: | 43963E42.8010408@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>Why aren't 'minutes' considered too? Because they aren't 'seconds'.
>>Well, seconds aren't microseconds either.
>
> Yeah, they are: it's just one field. The other way of looking at it
> (that everything is seconds) is served by "extract(epoch)".
Well, it's different in MySQL unfortunately - what does the standard
say? Out of interest, can someone try this for me in MySQL 5:
SELECT EXTRACT (MICROSECOND FROM '2003-01-02 10:30:00.00123');
SELECT EXTRACT (MICROSECOND FROM '2003-01-02 10:30:10.00123');
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-12-07 01:46:57 | Re: Optimizer oddness, possibly compounded in 8.1 |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2005-12-07 00:32:30 | Re: Concurrent CREATE INDEX, try 2 (was Re: Reducing relation locking overhead) |