From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Default to TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE? |
Date: | 2021-08-13 16:23:19 |
Message-ID: | 4cde3a46-ab29-c922-fdfa-5a242079c676@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 8/12/21 7:25 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I thought we found that changing behavior via GUC usually ends badly.
>> Yeah. Changing from SQL-spec to not-SQL-spec behavior is going to be
>> one tough sell to begin with, even without the point that that's been
>> our behavior for over two decades. But proposing to do it via a GUC
>> is just not-even-worth-discussing territory. That would force every
>> wannabe-portable program to cope with both behaviors; which would
>> end up meaning that not only do you still have to take care to write
>> WITH TIME ZONE when you want that, but *also* you'd have to be sure
>> to write WITHOUT TIME ZONE when you want that. In short, the worst
>> of both worlds.
> All of which I agree with, but this wasn't a cute idea of mine, this
> was what our users have requested because of the extreme annoyance
> caused by the current behavior.
>
What do other DBMSs do? This strikes me as primarily an education issue
(I did a webinar on it not that long ago)
If you want to protect against people using tz-less timestamp, maybe an
event trigger would be a solution, although maybe that's using a
sledgehammer to crack a nut.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2021-08-13 16:28:25 | Re: Default to TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE? |
Previous Message | David Christensen | 2021-08-13 16:16:18 | [PATCH] Error out if SKIP LOCKED and WITH TIES are both specified |