time value '24:00:00'
hello,
can the the current time family functions (CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, LOCALTIME,
etc) reach the '24:00:00' value ?
I want to compare LOCALTIME <= '24:00:00'::TIME and I am curios to know
if LOCALTIME < '24:00:00'::TIME is sufficient.
thanks,
razvan radu
why don't you just use < '00:00:00'::time
and avoid the issue?
IMHO there shouldn't even be a 24:00:00, because that would imply that there
is a 24:00:01 - which there is not.
It should go from 23:59 to 00:00
But then, I didn't write the spec for time in general, so maybe there is a
24:00 which is identical to 00:0=
UC
On Wednesday 01 November 2006 13:15, pgsql-general@list.coretech.ro wrote:
hello,
can the the current time family functions (CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, LOCALTIME,
etc) reach the '24:00:00' value ?I want to compare LOCALTIME <= '24:00:00'::TIME and I am curios to know
if LOCALTIME < '24:00:00'::TIME is sufficient.thanks,
razvan radu---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
--
Open Source Solutions 4U, LLC 1618 Kelly St
Phone: +1 707 568 3056 Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Cell: +1 650 302 2405 United States
Fax: +1 707 568 6416
Uwe C. Schroeder wrote:
why don't you just use < '00:00:00'::time
and avoid the issue?IMHO there shouldn't even be a 24:00:00, because that would imply that there
is a 24:00:01 - which there is not.
It should go from 23:59 to 00:00
But then, I didn't write the spec for time in general, so maybe there is a
24:00 which is identical to 00:00
Ah, times and dates are wonderful things though. For example, '23:59:60'
is a valid time (and not equal to 24:00:00 or 00:00:00) every so often.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
On Thursday 02 November 2006 00:16, Richard Huxton wrote:
Uwe C. Schroeder wrote:
why don't you just use < '00:00:00'::time
and avoid the issue?IMHO there shouldn't even be a 24:00:00, because that would imply that
there is a 24:00:01 - which there is not.
It should go from 23:59 to 00:00
But then, I didn't write the spec for time in general, so maybe there is
a 24:00 which is identical to 00:00Ah, times and dates are wonderful things though. For example, '23:59:60'
is a valid time (and not equal to 24:00:00 or 00:00:00) every so often.
Yeah, but isn't the third part milliseconds? Doesn't "milli" imply 1000 and
not 60. I may be totally off here though - well, it's getting late
UC
--
Open Source Solutions 4U, LLC 1618 Kelly St
Phone: +1 707 568 3056 Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Cell: +1 650 302 2405 United States
Fax: +1 707 568 6416
Uwe C. Schroeder wrote:
Ah, times and dates are wonderful things though. For example, '23:59:60'
is a valid time (and not equal to 24:00:00 or 00:00:00) every so often.Yeah, but isn't the third part milliseconds? Doesn't "milli" imply 1000 and
not 60. I may be totally off here though - well, it's getting late
Nope - hh:mm:ss.milli
And it's early in London, so it *must* be late in Western U.S.A. - see
you later :-)
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
On Thursday 02 November 2006 00:59, Richard Huxton wrote:
Uwe C. Schroeder wrote:
Ah, times and dates are wonderful things though. For example, '23:59:60'
is a valid time (and not equal to 24:00:00 or 00:00:00) every so often.Yeah, but isn't the third part milliseconds? Doesn't "milli" imply 1000
and not 60. I may be totally off here though - well, it's getting lateNope - hh:mm:ss.milli
And it's early in London, so it *must* be late in Western U.S.A. - see
you later :-)
You're right of course. Seconds! Who would have thought about that :-)
It's past 1am, so I guess I should go hit the mattress ...
PS: and I heard it's darn cold over there too ....
Uwe
--
Open Source Solutions 4U, LLC 1618 Kelly St
Phone: +1 707 568 3056 Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Cell: +1 650 302 2405 United States
Fax: +1 707 568 6416
Uwe C. Schroeder wrote:
On Thursday 02 November 2006 00:59, Richard Huxton wrote:
Uwe C. Schroeder wrote:
Ah, times and dates are wonderful things though. For example, '23:59:60'
is a valid time (and not equal to 24:00:00 or 00:00:00) every so often.Yeah, but isn't the third part milliseconds? Doesn't "milli" imply 1000
and not 60. I may be totally off here though - well, it's getting lateNope - hh:mm:ss.milli
And it's early in London, so it *must* be late in Western U.S.A. - see
you later :-)You're right of course. Seconds! Who would have thought about that :-)
It's past 1am, so I guess I should go hit the mattress ...PS: and I heard it's darn cold over there too ....
Winter has finally arrived in the U.K. - I hear it was -6C in Wales
first thing this morning.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
On 11/1/06, Uwe C. Schroeder <uwe@oss4u.com> wrote:
why don't you just use < '00:00:00'::time
and avoid the issue?IMHO there shouldn't even be a 24:00:00, because that would imply that there
is a 24:00:01 - which there is not.
It should go from 23:59 to 00:00
But then, I didn't write the spec for time in general, so maybe there is a
24:00 which is identical to 00:0
Keep in mind the times when there is an extra leap second added in. I
suspect that in those cases, we get "23:60"; that seems actually a
little bit stranger than 24:00...
--
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/linux.html
Oddly enough, this is completely standard behaviour for shells. This
is a roundabout way of saying `don't use combined chains of `&&'s and
`||'s unless you think Gödel's theorem is for sissies'.