Re: [GENERAL] Odd behaviour of timestamptz

2007-02-22 Thread Matteo Beccati
Hi, Tom Lane wrote: > I'll bet you are running in Europe/Amsterdam time zone? The above is > correct behavior according to the zic data files (see below). Yes, for somewhat reason the server was installed using Europe/Amsterdam as timezone, that's why no other italian user could replicate the is

Re: [GENERAL] Odd behaviour of timestamptz

2007-02-21 Thread Tom Lane
Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 13:21, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: >> On 2/21/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I'll bet you are running in Europe/Amsterdam time zone? The >>> above is >> >> what about me? i'm in poland, and runing in europe/warsaw

Re: [GENERAL] Odd behaviour of timestamptz

2007-02-21 Thread Scott Marlowe
On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 13:21, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote: > On 2/21/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'll bet you are running in Europe/Amsterdam time zone? The > above is > > what about me? i'm in poland, and runing in europe/warsaw time zone. i > assume we also had

Re: [GENERAL] Odd behaviour of timestamptz

2007-02-21 Thread hubert depesz lubaczewski
On 2/21/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'll bet you are running in Europe/Amsterdam time zone? The above is what about me? i'm in poland, and runing in europe/warsaw time zone. i assume we also had some issues lie this - where can i read about it? best regards, depesz -- http://w

Re: [GENERAL] Odd behaviour of timestamptz

2007-02-21 Thread Tom Lane
Matteo Beccati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > test=# INSERT into test values ('1910-01-10'); > INSERT 0 1 > test=# INSERT into test values ('1990-01-10'); > INSERT 0 1 > test=# SELECT * from test; >data > > 1910-01-10 00:00:00+00:19:32 > 1990-01-10 00:00:00

Re: [GENERAL] Odd behaviour of timestamptz

2007-02-21 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 09:40:05AM +0100, Matteo Beccati wrote: > > test=# SELECT * from test; > >data > > --- > > 1910-01-10 00:00:00+01:24 > > 1990-01-10 00:00:00+01 > > (2 rows) > > Actually this one was built from source (CVS HEAD from yesterday), so > it'

Re: [GENERAL] Odd behaviour of timestamptz

2007-02-21 Thread hubert depesz lubaczewski
On 2/21/07, Michael Glaesemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I suspect your RPMs build PostgreSQL without --enable-integer- datetimes. Without this configure flag, timestamps are represented as floats, with all of the imprecision that implies. See the second note below the Date/Time Types table:

Re: [GENERAL] Odd behaviour of timestamptz

2007-02-21 Thread Matteo Beccati
Hi, Michael Glaesemann wrote: >> test=# SELECT * from test; >>data >> >> 1910-01-10 00:00:00+00:19:32 >> 1990-01-10 00:00:00+01 >> (2 rows) > > I suspect your RPMs build PostgreSQL without --enable-integer-datetimes. > Without this configure flag, timestam

Re: [GENERAL] Odd behaviour of timestamptz

2007-02-21 Thread Matteo Beccati
Matteo Beccati ha scritto: > Hi, > > I've been recently pointed out an issue with timestamptz on a fedora box > and no one was able to replicate it on other machines. After a quick > chat on the IRC at least another two people could replicate the issue > and all of them were using an RPM package.

Re: [GENERAL] Odd behaviour of timestamptz

2007-02-21 Thread Michael Glaesemann
On Feb 21, 2007, at 17:15 , Matteo Beccati wrote: PostgreSQL 8.2.3 on i686-redhat-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC) 3.4.6 20060404 (Red Hat 3.4.6-3) test=# create TABLE test (data timestamp with time zone); CREATE TABLE test=# INSERT into test values ('1910-01-10'); INSERT 0 1 test=# INSE