"Trevor Talbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 10/11/07, Magne M=E6hre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Trevor Talbot wrote:
>>> That situation might sound a bit contrived, but I think the real point
>>> is that even for some records of observed times, the local time is the
>>> authoritative one, not UTC.
>> ...and for that scenario you have TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE

> But that doesn't give you DST-sensitive display for free, which is
> tempting for application use, especially if the application is meant
> to be suitably generic.

If you are dealing only in local time, what do you need timezone for at

Also note the possibility of coercing one type to the other on-the-fly
for display, or using the AT TIME ZONE construct.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to