Leonardo Frittelli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) reports a bug with a severity of 3
The lower the number the more severe it is.
Short Description
Conversion errors for datetime fields
Long Description
I am currently using Postgresql version 7.0.2, but I did not find any reference to
this problem in your
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> select '0:00:59.99'::time as fourteen_dec,
>'0:00:59.999'::time as fifteen_dec;
> -- Output from psql
> -- fourteen_dec | fifteen_dec
> +-
> -- 00:00:59 | 00:00:00
> --(1 row)
What I'm getting with curre
* Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001228 10:28]:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> regression=# select now()::date+'0:00:59.999'::time;
> ?column?
> ---
> 2000-12-28 00:00:60.00-05
> (1 row)
>
> The cause is clear enough: the 59.999 seconds are being rounded off
> to t
Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Aren't we *REQUIRED* by SQL99 to accept up to :61 to account for
> leap seconds?
60, maybe --- I have not looked at the SQL spec. 61 is a widely
repeated mistake; there never have been and never will be two leap
seconds in the same minute (cf. NTP sp
* Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001228 11:33]:
> Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Aren't we *REQUIRED* by SQL99 to accept up to :61 to account for
> > leap seconds?
>
> 60, maybe --- I have not looked at the SQL spec. 61 is a widely
> repeated mistake; there never have been and ne
* Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001228 19:39]:
> * Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001228 11:33]:
> > Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Aren't we *REQUIRED* by SQL99 to accept up to :61 to account for
> > > leap seconds?
> >
> > 60, maybe --- I have not looked at the SQL spec.
Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, here we have the SQL-99 standard requiring the behaviour.
"Requiring"? The only SQL99 text I can find that mentions leap seconds is:
A datetime value, of data type TIME WITHOUT TIME ZONE or TIMESTAMP
WITHOUT TIME ZONE, may rep
> Oh, and the UnixWare strftime man page allows %s to return 00-61.
They're just repeating a common mistake. If you want to learn something
about the subject, try some non-computer timekeeping references, for
example the US Naval Observatory:
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html
After digg
* Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001228 22:01]:
> > SO, we need to allow it as well. I suspect the C99 standard or
> > some other POSIX/SUS/etc standard changed.
>
> C99 *corrects* this error; it specifies 0-60 not 0-61 as the range
> of tm_sec. (It also describes actual support for leap-secon
