From: Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Rod Taylor <pg@rbt.ca>
Cc: Judith Altamirano Figueroa <jaltamirano@correolux.com.mx>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: time
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:22:39 -0700
Message-ID: <20051110192239.GA60396@winnie.fuhr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <11040.1131650023@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <1131635035.3529.143.camel@Desarrollo>
<1131646287.819.144.camel@home>
<20051110182139.GA87715@winnie.fuhr.org>
<11040.1131650023@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 02:13:43PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org> writes:
> > Am I missing something? Is there a reason not to simply cast the
> > timestamp value to time?
>
> I think the OP was trying to use the functional cast syntax
> time(now())
> which worked long ago, but has not since we added the
> SQL-spec time precision syntax.
I was referring to the expression that Rod Taylor posted, wondering
if there was some subtlety I was missing or if Rod simply didn't
think of the simpler solution (Rod responded indicating the latter).
--
Michael Fuhr
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-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: mike@fuhr.org, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pg@rbt.ca, jaltamirano@correolux.com.mx
Subject: Re: time
In-Reply-To: <20051110192239.GA60396@winnie.fuhr.org>
* 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