| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: storing TZ along timestamps |
| Date: | 2011-07-19 02:22:30 |
| Message-ID: | 1311029571-sup-2590@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of lun jul 18 18:37:15 -0400 2011:
> The timestamp and the timezone in which that timestamp was entered are
> two separate pieces of data and *ought* to be in two separate fields.
> For one thing, the question of "what timezone was this entered in" is an
> application-specific question, since you have three different potential
> timezones:
>
> * the actual client timezone
> * the actual server timezone
> * the application timezone if the application has configurable timezones
>
> In a builtin data type, which of those three would you pick? Only the
> application knows.
I think this whole discussion is built on the assumption that the client
timezone and the application timezone are one thing and the same; and
the server timezone is not relevant at all. If the app TZ is not the
client TZ, then the app will need fixed.
> Additionally, if you have your timestamp-with-original-timezone data
> type, then you're going to need to recode every single
> timestamp-handling function and operator to handle the new type.
I have my doubts about that, and I hope not. These details haven't been
discussed at all; I only started this thread to get community approval
on cataloguing the TZs.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2011-07-19 02:30:52 | Re: proposal: new contrib module plpgsql's embeded sql validator |
| Previous Message | Florian Pflug | 2011-07-18 23:36:31 | Re: Initial Review: JSON contrib modul was: Re: Another swing at JSON |