Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Timestamp weirdness

From: Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "emergency(dot)shower(at)gmail(dot)com" <emergency(dot)shower(at)gmail(dot)com>,pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Timestamp weirdness
Date: 2005-07-24 23:41:21
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-jdbc
Tom Lane wrote:

>>emergency(dot)shower(at)gmail(dot)com wrote:
>>>4) When reading from a TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE field, the driver
>>>should create a Timestamp by interpreting the y, M, d, H, m, s values
>>>as UTC timestamp fields. The Calendar, if given, should be ignored.

> Surely 4 should read "by interpreting the y...s values as a timestamp
> in the zone specified as part of the value", not as necessarily UTC.

Yes, you're right.

> The difficulty with both 2 and 3 is that the driver has no very good way
> of knowing whether it's writing to a timestamp with tz or one without.
> We can know the parameter datatype we send, but if that gets converted
> to the other type within the server, you're going to get burnt.

I'm leaning towards using UNKNOWN as the least-bad option for now, plus
some extension mechanism so you can override it if the type inference
does go wrong. Hopefully that should make the commonly-used cases work
without applications needing to do anything weird.


In response to


pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:From: Dave CramerDate: 2005-07-25 03:06:23
Subject: Re: Timestamp weirdness
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-07-24 22:48:10
Subject: Re: Timestamp weirdness

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group