On 11 Oct 2011, at 2:55, Harvey, Allan AC wrote:
Hi all,
Had to squash timestamps to the nearest 5 minutes and things went wrong.
My simple understanding of trunc() and casting to an integer says that
there is a bug here.
I think you may be right there, something about the rounding in
Alban Hertroys haram...@gmail.com writes:
On 11 Oct 2011, at 2:55, Harvey, Allan AC wrote:
My simple understanding of trunc() and casting to an integer says that
there is a bug here.
Which the type-cast should round to 4380103 and 4380104 respectively.
It doesn't:
That's because a cast from
On 11 October 2011 15:41, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Alban Hertroys haram...@gmail.com writes:
On 11 Oct 2011, at 2:55, Harvey, Allan AC wrote:
My simple understanding of trunc() and casting to an integer says that
there is a bug here.
Which the type-cast should round to 4380103 and
Alban Hertroys haram...@gmail.com writes:
On 11 October 2011 15:41, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
That's because a cast from float to int rounds, it doesn't truncate.
I figured it would be something like that. Is that how it's defined in
the SQL standard?
SQL99 says
Whenever
-Original Message-
From: Alban Hertroys [mailto:haram...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 12 October 2011 1:35 AM
To: Tom Lane
Cc: Harvey, Allan AC; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Should casting to integer produce same
result as trunc()
On 11 October 2011 15:41
Hi all,
Had to squash timestamps to the nearest 5 minutes and things went wrong.
My simple understanding of trunc() and casting to an integer says that
there is a bug here.
Expect it is my understanding though.
Can someone set me straight?
And thank you all for a wonderfull RDBMS.
Allan
