Re: Bad Timestamp Format at 23 in ...

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Martin Gainty
Тема Re: Bad Timestamp Format at 23 in ...
Дата
Msg-id BLU142-W3758B4F580F9B87E5C7B94AE4F0@phx.gbl
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Bad Timestamp Format at 23 in ...  (Warren Bell <warren@clarksnutrition.com>)
Ответы Re: Bad Timestamp Format at 23 in ...
Список pgsql-general
please display the SQL or Java Statement which constructs the incorrect date

thanks,
Martin
______________________________________________
Disclaimer and confidentiality note
Everything in this e-mail and any attachments relates to the official business of Sender. This transmission is of a confidential nature and Sender does not endorse distribution to any party other than intended recipient. Sender does not necessarily endorse content contained within this transmission.


> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:27:40 -0700
> From: warren@clarksnutrition.com
> To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: [GENERAL] Bad Timestamp Format at 23 in ...
>
> I have Postgresql 8.3 (PostgresPlus) running on an Apple with Tomcat 6.
> I am using the postgresql-8.3-603.jdbc3.jar driver. My app runs fine
> when on the apple, but when I move it over to a Windows machine running
> Tomcat 6 that accesses the same exact database on the Apple I get a "Bad
> Timestamp Format at 23 in 2008-09-16 18:41:00.479" error. I am guessing
> that it has something to do with how Java creates Dates on Unix verses
> Windows. Is this a JDBC issue or is there something I need to do in
> Postgres to make this work?
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> Warren Bell
> 909-645-8864
> warren@clarksnutrition.com
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general


Want to do more with Windows Live? Learn “10 hidden secrets” from Jamie. Learn Now

В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Warren Bell
Дата:
Сообщение: Bad Timestamp Format at 23 in ...
Следующее
От: Glyn Astill
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Index order