On Thursday 02 November 2006 00:16, Richard Huxton wrote:
> Uwe C. Schroeder wrote:
> > why don't you just use < '00:00:00'::time
> > and avoid the issue?
> >
> > IMHO there shouldn't even be a 24:00:00, because that would imply that
> > there is a 24:00:01 - which there is not.
> > It should go from 23:59 to 00:00
> > But then, I didn't write the spec for time in general, so maybe there is
> > a 24:00 which is identical to 00:00
>
> Ah, times and dates are wonderful things though. For example, '23:59:60'
> is a valid time (and not equal to 24:00:00 or 00:00:00) every so often.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second
Yeah, but isn't the third part milliseconds? Doesn't "milli" imply 1000 and
not 60. I may be totally off here though - well, it's getting late
UC
--
Open Source Solutions 4U, LLC 1618 Kelly St
Phone: +1 707 568 3056 Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Cell: +1 650 302 2405 United States
Fax: +1 707 568 6416
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
