X-Original-To: pgsql-interfaces-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 090FD535CB for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 15:46:04 +0100 (BST) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 37722-04 for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 14:45:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2E6E534C2 for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 15:45:58 +0100 (BST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j38Ek2nC014327; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:46:02 -0400 (EDT) To: Marvin Bellamy Cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org Subject: Re: What is the binary format for timestamps? In-reply-to: <42569606.8030503@innovision.com> References: <4255A00F.1010409@innovision.com> <23104.1112917952@sss.pgh.pa.us> <42569606.8030503@innovision.com> Comments: In-reply-to Marvin Bellamy message dated "Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:32:38 -0500" Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:46:02 -0400 Message-ID: <14326.1112971562@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200504/29 X-Sequence-Number: 5445 Marvin Bellamy writes: > I've been treating the timestamp as an integer, not a double. What's a > good way to deal with double/float byte ordering when reading/writing > data from Windows applications? Pretend it's an integer for long enough to byte-swap it the same way as you'd do for an integer of the same size. (IIRC this is exactly how the backend does it, too.) regards, tom lane