zle this one
through as well).
Sorry for the confusion.
George
- Original Message -
From: "George Weaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: [SQL] Strange be
> ... When the datereceived parameter was defined
> as type Date, it was actually arriving at the procedure as "11-08-2003" and
> "25-08-2003" in spite of showing up as indicated below. When I redefined
> the datereceived parameter as type OdbcDate, it arrived correctly at the
> procedure as "2003
"George Weaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does anyone have any idea why the default for seedlot recorded the time wit=
> h the day and month switched, resulting in the seedlot record being stamped=
> Nov 8, 2003 while the transaction was stamped correctly as Aug 11, 2003?
It's really not poss
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: [SQL] Strange behavior with timestamptz
> "George Weaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Does anyone have any idea why the default for seedlot recorded the time
wit=
>
Hi Everyone,
I have a situation where two tables have a
"Created" field defined as follows:
table
seedlot "created timestamptz DEFAULT
now(), "
table transaction"created
timestamptz NOT NULL DEFAULT now(),"
The transaction table records when a seedlot record
