Re: [HACKERS] Unhappiness with forced precision conversion for timestamp

2001-10-05 Thread Thomas Lockhart
> So far, as compared to many other databases, PostgreSQL, remains > pretty close to the standard (at least for our projects). The only > areas that we have had issues with is the default inclusion of the > timezone information when retriving the timestamp information and the > slightly non-stand

Re: [HACKERS] Unhappiness with forced precision conversion for timestamp

2001-10-04 Thread Thomas Lockhart
> The code asserts that SQL99 requires the default precision to be zero, > but I do not agree with that reading. What I find is in 6.1: > 30) If is not specified, then 0 (zero) is implicit. > If is not specified, then 6 is implicit. > so at the very least you'd need two diff

[HACKERS] Unhappiness with forced precision conversion for timestamp

2001-10-04 Thread Tom Lane
It seems to me that when there is no explicit precision notation attached, a time/timestamp datatype should not force a precision of zero, but should accept whatever it's given. This is analogous to the way we do char, varchar, and numeric: there's no length limit if you don't specify one. For e