On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 17:40 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Piotr Marcinczyk <pmarc...@gmail.com> writes:
> > I would like to implement item from TODO list: "Improve TIMESTAMP WITH
> > TIME ZONE subtraction to be DST-aware".
> > To compute interval properly, we need time zone. Currently in timestamp
> > we don't have time zone information, so I would use actual session time
> > zone for computations. This can cause problems in the future, when TZ
> > info will be saved in DB (this is also on TODO list). In such case, user
> > may suspect, that stored TZ will be used, and probably behavior of
> > subtraction will change. Anyway, I think, that using session TZ now is
> > better than not using it at all.
> TBH, that doesn't sound like an especially great idea from here.  The
> value of a timestamp difference is currently exact, but you're proposing
> to make it fuzzy and context-dependent.

I know that it is not perfect (I pointed risks), but I have no better

> The alternative proposal that's been on the table for awhile (see the
> preceding entry in the TODO list) is to remove the interval_justify_hours
> call in timestamp_mi, which would also have the effect of fixing the
> inconsistency that T1 + (T2 - T1) doesn't necessarily yield T2.  And it
> would do that a lot more straightforwardly, with less risk that there's
> still corner cases that would misbehave.
> If it's not the T1 + (T2 - T1) issue that's bothering you, perhaps
> you should explain exactly what results you're hoping to get by changing
> this behavior.

In SQL99 "4.7 Datetimes and intervals" I read, that day-time intervals
(I think, that our interval has this type) should have hours in range
0-23. I suggest to remove preceding entry from TODO list, and not treat
this as alternative. Current behavior is OK.

Regarding this, we have two options: use session TZ, or wait for
implementation of TZ saved in timestamp field. In my opinion saving TZ
in field doesn't give serious benefits, and it's probable that it will
never be implemented. In this case, using session TZ is sufficient.

Can You explain, why do You read this proposal as fuzzy? I believe that
using session context is normal in many cases. Maybe I should consider
saving TZ in timestamp once again?

Best regards
Piotrek Marcinczyk

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to