Thread: time value '24:00:00'
hello, can the the current time family functions (CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, LOCALTIME, etc) reach the '24:00:00' value ? I want to compare LOCALTIME <= '24:00:00'::TIME and I am curios to know if LOCALTIME < '24:00:00'::TIME is sufficient. thanks, razvan radu
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 is identical to 00:0= UC On Wednesday 01 November 2006 13:15, pgsql-general@list.coretech.ro wrote: > hello, > > can the the current time family functions (CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, LOCALTIME, > etc) reach the '24:00:00' value ? > > I want to compare LOCALTIME <= '24:00:00'::TIME and I am curios to know > if LOCALTIME < '24:00:00'::TIME is sufficient. > > > thanks, > razvan radu > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly -- Open Source Solutions 4U, LLC 1618 Kelly St Phone: +1 707 568 3056 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Cell: +1 650 302 2405 United States Fax: +1 707 568 6416
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 maybe there is a > 24:00 which is identical to 00:00 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 -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd
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 00:00 > > But then, I didn't write the spec for time in general, so maybe there is > > a 24:00 which is identical to 00:00 > > 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. I may be totally off here though - well, it's getting late UC -- Open Source Solutions 4U, LLC 1618 Kelly St Phone: +1 707 568 3056 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Cell: +1 650 302 2405 United States Fax: +1 707 568 6416
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. I may be totally off here though - well, it's getting late Nope - hh:mm:ss.milli And it's early in London, so it *must* be late in Western U.S.A. - see you later :-) -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd
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 the third part milliseconds? Doesn't "milli" imply 1000 > > and not 60. I may be totally off here though - well, it's getting late > > Nope - hh:mm:ss.milli > And it's early in London, so it *must* be late in Western U.S.A. - see > you later :-) You're right of course. Seconds! Who would have thought about that :-) It's past 1am, so I guess I should go hit the mattress ... PS: and I heard it's darn cold over there too .... Uwe -- Open Source Solutions 4U, LLC 1618 Kelly St Phone: +1 707 568 3056 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Cell: +1 650 302 2405 United States Fax: +1 707 568 6416
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 >>> Yeah, but isn't the third part milliseconds? Doesn't "milli" imply 1000 >>> and not 60. I may be totally off here though - well, it's getting late >> Nope - hh:mm:ss.milli >> And it's early in London, so it *must* be late in Western U.S.A. - see >> you later :-) > > You're right of course. Seconds! Who would have thought about that :-) > It's past 1am, so I guess I should go hit the mattress ... > > PS: and I heard it's darn cold over there too .... Winter has finally arrived in the U.K. - I hear it was -6C in Wales first thing this morning. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd
On 11/1/06, Uwe C. Schroeder <uwe@oss4u.com> 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 maybe there is a > 24:00 which is identical to 00:0 Keep in mind the times when there is an extra leap second added in. I suspect that in those cases, we get "23:60"; that seems actually a little bit stranger than 24:00... -- http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/linux.html Oddly enough, this is completely standard behaviour for shells. This is a roundabout way of saying `don't use combined chains of `&&'s and `||'s unless you think Gödel's theorem is for sissies'.