> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Grittner [mailto:Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov]
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 9:48 AM
> To: Roberts, Jon; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] timestamp format bug
>
> >>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 9:34 AM, in message
> <1A6E6D554222284AB25ABE3229A92762715521@nrtexcus70 2.int.asurion.com>,
> "Roberts,
> Jon" <Jon.Roberts@asurion.com> wrote:
> > select to_char(date, 'yyyy-mm-dd hh24:mi:ss.ms') as char,
> > date
> > from (select timestamp'2008-01-30 15:06:21.560' as date) sub
> >
> > "2008-01-30 15:06:21.560";"2008-01-30 15:06:21.56"
> >
> > These two fields should be consistent because they should be formatted
> > the same way.
>
> Why would you think that?
>
> I would expect the timestamp to be presented with one to nine
> digits to the right of the decimal point, depending on the value.

I expect the query to return either:
"2008-01-30 15:06:21.560";"2008-01-30 15:06:21.560"

or:
"2008-01-30 15:06:21.56";"2008-01-30 15:06:21.56"

The default timestamp format appears to be yyyy-mm-dd hh24:mi:ss.ms but it
doesn't follow this for milliseconds. It truncates the trailing zero for
timestamps and it does not truncate the trailing zero when cast as a
character.

I don't care which standard should be adopted but it should be the same.

>
> I can think of a couple database products which only go to three
> decimal positions, and always show three, but that's hardly a
> standard.


Oracle and MS SQL Server are consistent in this.



Jon

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

>>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 12:28 PM, in message
<1A6E6D554222284AB25ABE3229A92762715525@nrtexcus70 2.int.asurion.com>, "Roberts,
Jon" <Jon.Roberts@asurion.com> wrote:
> The default timestamp format appears to be yyyy-mm-dd hh24:mi:ss.ms

Not to me:

select now();
now
-------------------------------
2008-01-31 12:31:40.568746-06
(1 row)



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Grittner [mailto:Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov]
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 12:33 PM
> To: Roberts, Jon; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: RE: [HACKERS] timestamp format bug
>
> >>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 12:28 PM, in message
> <1A6E6D554222284AB25ABE3229A92762715525@nrtexcus70 2.int.asurion.com>,
> "Roberts,
> Jon" <Jon.Roberts@asurion.com> wrote:
> > The default timestamp format appears to be yyyy-mm-dd hh24:mi:ss.ms
>
> Not to me:
>
> select now();
> now
> -------------------------------
> 2008-01-31 12:31:40.568746-06
> (1 row)
>

I'm guessing that is a server setting on how to format a timestamp.
Your appears to be yyyy-mm-dd hh24:mi:ss.us.


So on your db, run this query:
select sub.t1, to_char(t1, 'yyyy-mm-dd hh24:mi:ss.us') as char_t1
from
(
select timestamp'2008-01-31 12:31:40.500000' as t1
) sub


I bet you get this:
"2008-01-31 12:31:40.50";"2008-01-31 12:31:40.500000"

Don't you think it should have two identical columns?

Secondly, this link shows that ms should be 000-999 and us should be
000000-999999.

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/s...ormatting.html


All of the other fields are padded like month, day, year, hour, minute,
and second and are consistent. The formats ms and us should be
consistent too.



Jon

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

>>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 12:45 PM, in message
<1A6E6D554222284AB25ABE3229A92762715527@nrtexcus70 2.int.asurion.com>, "Roberts,
Jon" <Jon.Roberts@asurion.com> wrote:

> So on your db, run this query:
> select sub.t1, to_char(t1, 'yyyy-mm-dd hh24:mi:ss.us') as char_t1
> from
> (
> select timestamp'2008-01-31 12:31:40.500000' as t1
> ) sub
>
>
> I bet you get this:
> "2008-01-31 12:31:40.50";"2008-01-31 12:31:40.500000"

t1 | char_t1
------------------------+----------------------------
2008-01-31 12:31:40.50 | 2008-01-31 12:31:40.500000
(1 row)

> Don't you think it should have two identical columns?

No. Why should the return value of a function influence the input?

What would you expect from this query?:

select sub.t1, substring(sub.t1 from 2 for 3) as substring_t1
from
(
select 'abcde'::text as t1
) sub

> Secondly, this link shows that ms should be 000-999 and us should be
> 000000-999999.

Yes. That seems to me to work fine, as your examples show.

-Kevin




---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Grittner [mailto:Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov]
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 1:47 PM
> To: Roberts, Jon; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: RE: [HACKERS] timestamp format bug
>
> >>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 12:45 PM, in message
> <1A6E6D554222284AB25ABE3229A92762715527@nrtexcus70 2.int.asurion.com>,
> "Roberts,
> Jon" <Jon.Roberts@asurion.com> wrote:
>
> > So on your db, run this query:
> > select sub.t1, to_char(t1, 'yyyy-mm-dd hh24:mi:ss.us') as char_t1
> > from
> > (
> > select timestamp'2008-01-31 12:31:40.500000' as t1
> > ) sub
> >
> >
> > I bet you get this:
> > "2008-01-31 12:31:40.50";"2008-01-31 12:31:40.500000"
>
> t1 | char_t1
> ------------------------+----------------------------
> 2008-01-31 12:31:40.50 | 2008-01-31 12:31:40.500000
> (1 row)
>
> > Don't you think it should have two identical columns?
>
> No. Why should the return value of a function influence the input?
>


This is clearly a bug. Don't fix it. I don't care.


Jon


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend