Re: [Libreoffice] ODBC handles, a quibble

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.

I agree.

> > (*) 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

<aside>

  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
  cross-platform development!

  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.

</aside>

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.


Thanks,
Terry.