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
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
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second
Yeah, but isn't the third part milliseconds? Doesn't milli imply 1000 and
not 60.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second
Yeah, but isn't
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second
On 11/1/06, Uwe C. Schroeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
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
