Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Hm, so the proposal is "round unless that would produce 24:00:00, in
> which case truncate"? Seems a bit ugly but it would follow the letter
> of the spec, and avoid rejecting inputs that we used to accept. It's
> still not very clear what to do with '23:59:60.9' though.
I'd handle it the same; 23.59.60.9 -> 23.59.60 since this is apparently
a leap second. A normal second should never become a leap second from
some conversion, but a leap second should stay one.
Regards,
Andreas