On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Brian Aker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi! > > On Aug 12, 2008, at 11:36 AM, Monty Taylor wrote: > >> We'd potentially need two different types though... as create-time and >> modified-time. > > > TIMESTAMP <ON UPDATE> > > That would cover both cases I believe. Without <ON UPDATE> we would just > leave the timestamp alone.
I think this discussion is missing something important. Unless we plan to have a DATETIME that uses small storage space, I don't like the idea of forcing one property (storage space) to be tied to another property (auto-updating). It forces people into an either-or situation where in many cases, they can't get what they want and leave what they don't want. I would advocate for making behavior independent from storage type, and adding in proper default-handling with defaults allowed to be expressions. This should be pluggable if possible! Even if it's not pluggable, I see no good reason that I shouldn't be able to make a VARCHAR column auto-update to the current time. (Or current date, or whatever). Doing a subset of the current overly-restrictive behavior would be a real throwback :) Baron _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
