> > I already commented what I thought about this: the current type is not
> > either of the SQL-compatible timestamp types, and if we want to support
> > the SQL-compatible semantics then we need three types, not two.
>
> Right, that was clear even to me ;)
>
> We were on that path for quite some time. I volunteered to move the
> datetime type to become timestamp since *no one* was interested in
> implementing timestamp properly. There was extensive (or at least
> complete) discussion at the time.
>
> Per Date and Darwen (and common sense) the SQL9x date/time time zone
> support is fundamentally flawed, and clearly leads to deep trouble in
> trying to operate a database across time zones or national boundaries.
> PostgreSQL had strongly influenced SQL standards in the past (e.g. data
> type extensibility) and imho our current implementation is the way the
> standard should have read.
I believe the issue here was how do we describe the TIMESTAMP data type,
as TIMESTAMP or TIMESTAMP WITH TIMEZONE. I thought people were
proposing the former. Thomas, did you express a preference?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
