Re: Should AT TIME ZONE be volatile?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Shay Rojansky <roji(at)roji(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should AT TIME ZONE be volatile?
Date: 2021-11-11 18:38:13
Message-ID: 1577691.1636655893@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I agree with Tom that it sounds like a lot of work. And to be honest
> it's work that I don't really feel very excited about.

Even if you were excited about it, would maintaining such data be
a good use of project resources? It's not like we lack other things
we ought to be doing. I agree that the lack of reliable versioning
info is a problem, but I can't see that "let's fork ICU and tzdb too"
is a good answer.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniel Westermann (DWE) 2021-11-11 19:07:46 Re: Should AT TIME ZONE be volatile?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2021-11-11 18:22:59 Re: unexpected plan with id = any('{}') condition