You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to derby-dev@db.apache.org by "Samuel Andrew McIntyre (JIRA)" <de...@db.apache.org> on 2005/06/04 09:00:41 UTC
[jira] Resolved: (DERBY-194) getPrecision() on TIME and TIMESTAMP is zero
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-194?page=all ]
Samuel Andrew McIntyre resolved DERBY-194:
------------------------------------------
Resolution: Fixed
Patch was committed with svn revision 179839. Could Army or George please verify this is fixed and close?
> getPrecision() on TIME and TIMESTAMP is zero
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-194
> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-194
> Project: Derby
> Type: Bug
> Components: JDBC
> Versions: 10.0.2.0
> Environment: Windows XP SP1 Professional
> Reporter: George Baklarz
> Assignee: A B
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 10.1.0.0
> Attachments: derby-194.patch, derby-194.stat
>
> Sun JDBC defines getPrecision() to return either the maximum length or maximum number of digits of the column, or zero for failure (such as the precision is unknown).
> http://docs.sun.com/source/816-6105-10/apicola.htm#211083
> The DATE field returns 10 characters on a getPrecision() call so why doesn't TIME and TIMESTAMP give a precision length equal to the display length? Just seems inconsistent that DATE would return a precision (as well as all other data types) and not TIME nor TIMESTAMP.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
Re: [jira] Resolved: (DERBY-194) getPrecision() on TIME and TIMESTAMP
is zero
Posted by Army <qo...@sbcglobal.net>.
Samuel Andrew McIntyre (JIRA) wrote:
> [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-194?page=all ]
>
> Samuel Andrew McIntyre resolved DERBY-194:
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Resolution: Fixed
>
> Patch was committed with svn revision 179839. Could Army or George please verify this is fixed and close?
Since George is the original reporter, I'll wait to see if he wants to verify
and close this issue. If we don't hear from him in a day or two, I'll go ahead
and close it.
Army