| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Trevor Talbot" <quension(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Aidan Van Dyk" <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Magne Mæhre <Magne(dot)Mahre(at)sun(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Timezone database changes |
| Date: | 2007-10-10 16:43:17 |
| Message-ID: | 18765.1192034597@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Trevor Talbot" <quension(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Actually, what I meant at least (not sure if others meant it), is
> storing the value in the timezone it was entered, along with what zone
> that was. That makes the value stable with respect to the zone it
> belongs to, instead of being stable with respect to UTC. When DST
> rules change, the value is in effect "reinterpreted" as if it were
> input using the new rules.
What happens if the rules change in a way that makes the value illegal
or ambiguous (ie, it now falls into a DST gap)?
But perhaps more to the point, please show use-cases demonstrating that
this behavior is more useful than the pure-UTC behavior. For storage of
actual time observations, I think pure-UTC is unquestionably the more
useful. Peter's example of a future appointment time is a possible
counterexample, but as observed upthread it's hardly clear which
behavior is more desirable in such a case.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Saito | 2007-10-10 16:49:30 | Re: permission denied for tablespace pg_global? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-10 16:35:32 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Added the Skytools extended transaction ID module to contrib as |