From: | David Garamond <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Christopher Petrilli <petrilli(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Storing birthday data |
Date: | 2004-09-12 05:14:00 |
Message-ID: | 4143DB18.9080307@zara.6.isreserved.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Christopher Petrilli wrote:
>>What would be the more proper way of storing birthday data? It will be
>>used to send out birthday messages for customers ("Happy 30th birthday,
>>Sam!"). But the date of birth is not necessarily known (in which case,
>>we will only send out "Happy birthday, Sam!").
>>
>>I prefer using the builtin date type instead of three smallints. But I
>>don't like having to arbitrarily set, say, year 1000 AD or 1 BC to
>>represent "unknown year".
>
> Well if you make the column nullable, then you can detect that when
> you retreive it.
Which column? If I use a single date column and set it nullable, I won't
be able to say "date of month and month is known, but year is unknown".
Anyway, I think I'll go with the single date column way.
> You could also, if you don't want that, use a second
> column to indicate that it's been set.
--
dave
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | michael.wimmer | 2004-09-12 10:36:24 | Re: unicode and varchar |
Previous Message | Christopher Browne | 2004-09-12 04:43:18 | Re: Synchronizing Databases |