Message-ID: <3A3643EB.1F594004@alumni.caltech.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:27:39 +0000
From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Organization: Yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Mount <petermount@maidstone.gov.uk>
Cc: "'pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org'" <pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: RE: JDBC Timestamp Problem
References: 
 <1B3D5E532D18D311861A00600865478CF1B64D@exchange1.nt.maidstone.gov.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> Yes, about 1-2 months ago ;-) The current CVS has the patch applied.
> As soon as I get the domain problems sorted, I'm going to tripple check
> Timestamp as I'd like to see the next release without the timestamp bug
> reappearing...

Do you want to talk about what PostgreSQL *should* return for timestamp
values? Currently, it rounds to two digits if there is a non-zero
fractional part, and omits the fractional part otherwise.

Both features are there for readability and to eliminate the possibility
of accumulated rounding errors introducing "lots 'o nines" in the
output. But we *could* make it variable length or do more checking and
rounding in a different way. And we *could* at least have a SET
key=value parameter which you could use to guarantee a format for a
session.

The fact that JDBC has troubles with the current scheme means that
others are probably having trouble too...

                       - Thomas