[Libreoffice] ODBC handles, a quibble
tenger at iseries-guru.com
Wed Oct 5 08:09:34 PDT 2011
On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 13:31 +0100, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> I pushed my patch, mostly because its the simplest, and Lionel can
> double-check it later at his leisure.
> > (*) Both patches discard milliseconds. I *guess* this is
> > the right thing to do, but would welcome others'
> > opinions. Anyway, there is no more need for the TODO
> > comment saying to ask this question.
> We're kind of stuck there without a lot of work because 100ths of a
> second is as good as our existing timestamps support. Probably ok given
> given http://support.microsoft.com/kb/263872
Heh. The microsoft page warns me "This article applies to
a different operating system than the one you are
using. Article content that may not be relevant to you is
disabled." Take that, you lefties who care about
For comparison, I tried inserting a value with too much
precision into a TIMESTAMP(4) field in PostgreSQL. The
result was silent truncation, at least as far as I can see
by selecting the field in psql.
Actually, I was questioning the decision to truncate
milliseconds rather than rounding to the nearest hundredth.
It common (but not overwhelmingly common) to round values
when a conversion loses precision, but truncation is
consistent with the common treatment of times outside
programming. I guess I just answered my question: when
programming and the outside world bump into each other, the
real world should win.
More information about the LibreOffice