Message-ID: <4A12737F.1020207@archonet.com>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 09:53:19 +0100
From: Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090320)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sebastien FLAESCH <sf@4js.com>
CC: pgsql-general@postgresql.org, mmoncure@gmail.com
Subject: Re: INTERVAL SECOND limited to 59 seconds?
References: <4A127038.3010103@4js.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A127038.3010103@4js.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Sebastien FLAESCH wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Can someone explain this:
> 
> test1=> create table t1 ( k int, i interval second );
> CREATE TABLE
> test1=> insert into t1 values ( 1, '-67 seconds' );
> INSERT 0 1
> test1=> insert into t1 values ( 2, '999 seconds' );
> INSERT 0 1
> test1=> select * from t1;
>  k |     i
> ---+-----------
>  1 | -00:00:07
>  2 | 00:00:39
> (2 rows)
> 
> I would expect that an INTERVAL SECOND can store more that 59 seconds.

I didn't even know we had an "interval second" type. It's not entirely 
clear to me what such a value means. Anyway - what's happening is that 
it's going through "interval" first. So - '180 seconds' will yield 
'00:03:00' and the seconds part of that is zero.

The question I suppose is whether that's correct or not. An interval can 
clearly store periods longer than 59 seconds. It's reasonable to ask for 
an interval to be displayed as "61 seconds". If "interval second" means 
the seconds-only part of an interval though, then it's doing the right 
thing.

-- 
   Richard Huxton
   Archonet Ltd