X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65A2BD1B2A8 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 19:55:14 -0300 (ADT) 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 23839-09 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 22:55:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B932D1B1C8 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 19:55:09 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i73Mt8U2014758; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 18:55:09 -0400 (EDT) To: Michael Glaesemann Cc: "Pedro B." , Achilleus Mantzios , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Datetime In-reply-to: References: <23178.1091546009@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Michael Glaesemann message dated "Wed, 04 Aug 2004 07:16:16 +0900" Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 18:55:08 -0400 Message-ID: <14757.1091573708@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200408/28 X-Sequence-Number: 18525 Michael Glaesemann writes: > I don't quite understand how I am wrong in saying that PostgreSQL does > not use UNIX epoch timestamps internally, as you've clearly explained > it doesn't. We are talking at cross-purposes. I thought you were suggesting that PG doesn't use a seconds-from-epoch form at all, but some other format (such as perhaps separate yyyy/mm/dd/hh/mm/ss fields). Sorry if I added to the confusion instead of dispelling it. regards, tom lane