From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
To: Peter Mount <petermount@it.maidstone.gov.uk>
Cc: 'Chris Ryan' <chris@greatbridge.com>
Cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: JDBC and Timestamps
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 23:30:10 +0000
Message-ID: <398CA382.390904BB@alumni.caltech.edu> (raw)
References: <1B3D5E532D18D311861A00600865478CF1B1E4@exchange1.nt.maidstone.gov.uk>
> ... I'm noticing problems with the timestamp fields. The JDBC
> driver when writing a Timestamp value to postgres is passing the value
> to the backend as a String in the following format "yyyy-mm-dd
> hh:mm:ss.fffffffff" <-- the last part .fffffffff is nanosecs.
Do you actually need nanosecond (or sub-microsecond) resolution? At the
moment, Postgres rounds internal values *and* truncates printed results
to avoid accumulating internal roundoff errors. But I did that pretty
conservatively, rather than actually testing to see if it could carry
more precision.
If you want to test with more precision, we could try some variations...
- Thomas
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Cc: lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu, petermount@it.maidstone.gov.uk, chris@greatbridge.com
Subject: Re: JDBC and Timestamps
In-Reply-To: <398CA382.390904BB@alumni.caltech.edu>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox