Re: [GENERAL] Dumb question about binary cursors and #ifdefHAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dann Corbit
Subject Re: [GENERAL] Dumb question about binary cursors and #ifdefHAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP
Date
Msg-id D425483C2C5C9F49B5B7A41F8944154701000B1A@postal.corporate.connx.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [GENERAL] Dumb question about binary cursors and #ifdef HAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alvaro Herrera [mailto:alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 1:11 PM
> To: Dann Corbit
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Dumb question about binary cursors and
> #ifdefHAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP
>
> Dann Corbit wrote:
> > If I create a binary cursor on a recent version of PostgreSQL, how
can I
> > tell if the timestamp data internally is an 8 byte double or an 8
byte
> > integer?
> >
> > I see an #ifdef that changes the code path to compute timestamps as
one
> > type or the other, but I do not know how to recognize the internal
> > format of the type that will be returned in a binary cursor.
> >
> > How can I do that?
>
> SHOW integer_timestamp;
>
> (actually, IIRC, this is one of the params that the server will send
you
> at session start).

I guess that I am supposed to check for error on the statement?  What
does it look like when the query works?

This is what I get against PostgreSQL 8.2.5 using PG Admin III query
tool:

ERROR:  unrecognized configuration parameter "integer_timestamp"

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Dumb question about binary cursors and #ifdef HAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP
Next
From: "Dann Corbit"
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Dumb question about binary cursors and #ifdefHAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP