| From: | Magne Mæhre <Magne(dot)Mahre(at)Sun(dot)COM> |
|---|---|
| To: | Trevor Talbot <quension(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Timezone database changes |
| Date: | 2007-10-11 12:06:19 |
| Message-ID: | 470E11BB.4050606@sun.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Trevor Talbot wrote:
> Thinking that it might have had out of date zone rules brings up an
> interesting scenario though. Consider a closed (no networking or
> global interest) filing system in a local organization's office, where
> it's used to record the minutes of meetings and such via human input.
> It would seem that the correct time to record in that case is in fact
> the local time, not UTC. If that system is left alone for years, and
> does not receive any zone rule updates, it will likely begin storing
> the wrong UTC values. When the data is later transported out
> (upgrade, archive, whatever), it will be incorrect unless you use that
> particular snapshot of the zone rules.
>
> That situation might sound a bit contrived, but I think the real point
> is that even for some records of observed times, the local time is the
> authoritative one, not UTC.
...and for that scenario you have TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE
--Magne
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magne Mæhre | 2007-10-11 12:16:33 | Re: Timezone database changes |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2007-10-11 10:57:22 | Some questions about mammoth replication |