From: | 甄明洋 <zhenmingyang(at)yeah(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Francisco Olarte" <folarte(at)peoplecall(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Aleksander Alekseev" <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re:Re: Re: Re: Re:Re: [BUGS] Re: [BUGS] Return value error of‘to_timestamp’ |
Date: | 2016-08-19 03:18:37 |
Message-ID: | 16d276c1.9fb.156a0ceba46.Coremail.zhenmingyang@yeah.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
thanks for you answer
thanks !
在 2016-08-18 22:09:06,"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> 写道:
>Francisco Olarte <folarte(at)peoplecall(dot)com> writes:
>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 11:57 AM, 甄明洋 <zhenmingyang(at)yeah(dot)net> wrote:
>>> Why don't use a unified time zone Convention ?
>
>> Given Tom said:
>>>> Aren't standards fun?
>
>> I suspect SQL std. mandates it.
>
>The SQL standard does mandate use of ISO convention for timestamp values.
>However, the use of any sort of timezone name in "SET timezone" is outside
>the SQL standard (or at least it was last I looked). Our timezone name
>support is based on the IANA (nee Olson) timezone data set, which is used
>by just about everybody except Microsoft, and that follows the POSIX
>standard.
>
>In principle we could hack up the IANA code and data so that zone names
>that look like POSIX names follow the ISO sign convention, but if you
>ask me that's just nuts. It would mean for example that "set timezone
>to 'PST8PDT'" inside PG would act completely differently from "TZ=PST8PDT"
>in the shell. That would result in more confusion not less.
>
>In short, neither of these choices were made in a vacuum.
>
> regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-08-19 07:15:00 | Re: BUG #14243: pg_basebackup failes by a STATUS_DELETE_PENDING file |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-08-19 00:37:28 | Re: BUG #14150: Attempted to delete invisible tuple |