Thanks Knut for the reply!! On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Knut Anders Hatlen <[email protected]>wrote:
> Nirmal Fernando <[email protected]> writes: > > > Hi All, > > > > While referring to DateTimeTest I found the following test case [1]. > > I think we should allow up to nanoseconds, but I am wondering whether > > it's not the ISO format. > > > > Is it ok to change this test case? > > Hi Nirmal, > > I think this is an OK change. In SQL:2003, vol 2, section 5.3 <literal>, > under Conformance Rules, I found this note: > > ,---- > | 2) Without Feature F555, “Enhanced seconds precision”, in conforming > | SQL language, an <unsigned integer> that is a <seconds fraction> that > | is contained in a <timestamp literal> shall not contain more than 6 > | <digit>s. > `---- > > So it appears there is a standard feature called "Enhanced seconds > precision" that allows us to have more than six digits in the fraction > part of a timestamp literal. We haven't implemented it yet (see for > example http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/SQLvsDerbyFeatures), but I don't > see any reason why we shouldn't. > > Thanks, > > -- > Knut Anders > -- Best Regards, Nirmal C.S.Nirmal J. Fernando Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka.
