X-Original-To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Received: from spampd.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5E92476241 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:57:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp.convergia.net (unknown [66.201.240.182]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D120047580B for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:57:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from converdev01 (unknown [172.28.7.230]) by smtp.convergia.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 4FBB31C806B; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:57:18 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: From: "Liang Luo" To: "'Tom Lane'" Cc: Subject: Re: How to show timestamp with milliseconds(3 digits) in Select clause in Ver7.1 ? Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:57:17 -0500 Message-ID: <013e01c2f542$b58d7af0$e6071cac@convergia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4633.1048687611@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-28.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,ORIGINAL_MESSAGE, QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES autolearn=ham version=2.50 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp) X-Archive-Number: 200303/630 X-Sequence-Number: 12668 My version is 7.1, and I also have another version 7.2 but this problem does not happen on version 7.2. Now I want to dump these data out from version 7.1 and upgrade it, and then load these data into version 7.2 Thanks, Liang -----Original Message----- From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 9:07 AM To: liang.luo@convergia.net Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [SQL] How to show timestamp with milliseconds(3 digits) in Select clause in Ver7.1 ? "Liang Luo" writes: > 2003-01-01 00:43:60.00-05 > Actually, the real data of second and millisecond is 59.996-05, but it shows > 60.00. I failed to load it when I use this result in other query. This looks like an old bug. What Postgres version are you using, and on what platform? regards, tom lane