Re: date_part()/EXTRACT(second) behaviour with time data type

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: date_part()/EXTRACT(second) behaviour with time data type
Дата
Msg-id 19958.1248884142@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на date_part()/EXTRACT(second) behaviour with time data type  (Gregory Stark <stark@mit.edu>)
Ответы Re: date_part()/EXTRACT(second) behaviour with time data type  (Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Gregory Stark <stark@mit.edu> writes:
> I think we broke date_part for extracting seconds from time arguments. It
> appears we leave out the milliseconds whereas we don't for timestamp
> arguments. This was not the case in 8.3 where we included the milliseconds for
> both data types.

It's not new.  This appears to be a difference between the integer and
float timestamp code paths, and I'd say it's probably a thinko:
           case DTK_SECOND:
#ifdef HAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP               result = tm->tm_sec + fsec / USECS_PER_SEC;
#else               result = tm->tm_sec + fsec;
#endif               break;

In the integer case, fsec is an integer and so the division loses the
fraction.  timestamptz_part does this instead:
           case DTK_SECOND:
#ifdef HAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP               result = tm->tm_sec + fsec / 1000000.0;
#else               result = tm->tm_sec + fsec;
#endif               break;

I agree that we should change it, but should we back-patch it, and if so
how far?
        regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Andrew Dunstan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: xpath not a good replacement for xpath_string
Следующее
От: Andrew Dunstan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: system timezone regression failure