Re: Why data of timestamptz does not store value of timezone passed to it?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "ktm(at)rice(dot)edu" <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com>, rohtodeveloper <rohtodeveloper(at)outlook(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Why data of timestamptz does not store value of timezone passed to it?
Date: 2014-08-28 20:28:40
Message-ID: 32285.1409257720@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"ktm(at)rice(dot)edu" <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 03:33:56PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> So the standard requires storing of original timezone in the data type?
>> I was not aware of that.

> I do not have a copy of the SQL 92 spec, but several references to the
> spec mention that it defined the "time zone" as a format "SHH:MM" where
> S represents the sign (+ or -), which seems to be what PostgreSQL uses.

Yeah, the spec envisions timezone as being a separate numeric field
(ie, a numeric GMT offset) within a timestamp with time zone. One of
the ways in which the spec's design is rather broken is that there's
no concept of real-world time zones with varying DST rules.

Anyway, I agree with the upthread comments that it'd have been better
if we'd used some other name for this datatype, and also that it's
at least ten years too late to revisit the choice :-(.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2014-08-28 20:56:35 Re: Per table autovacuum vacuum cost limit behaviour strange
Previous Message Fujii Masao 2014-08-28 20:27:54 Re: pgsql: Allow units to be specified in relation option setting value.