On 05/06/18 11:34, Mark Rotteveel wrote:
Is there any reason why post-1970 time zones need second resolution for
zone offsets? Or is there any other strong argument why second precision
is needed?
To be honest, I don't see why we should cater to an extremely uncommon
minor use-case which
On 05/06/18 16:27, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
Maybe it is just me, but it seems we are now having discussions that
should have been had and resolved before implementation.
In my whole life, I only see things being done when someone *really
does* it.
That discussion you were talking,
On 05/06/2018 07:34, Mark Rotteveel wrote:
>
> Maybe it is just me, but it seems we are now having discussions that
> should have been had and resolved before implementation.
>
You, as a waterfall methodology advocate, can pretend it's not
implemented, so let's say we're still building the 1000
On 05/06/2018 07:34, Mark Rotteveel wrote:
> On 5-6-2018 11:43, Lester Caine wrote:
>> On 05/06/18 09:39, Mark Rotteveel wrote:
>>> On 5-6-2018 10:16, Lester Caine wrote:
On 05/06/18 08:50, Mark Rotteveel wrote:
> That naming doesn't make much sense to me, and I actually found
> the
On 05/06/2018 05:16, Lester Caine wrote:
>
>
> And I've still not had anybody explain why the removal of seconds from
> the offsets is seen as a good idea?
It's not present in the SQL standard.
Never see it being used in real world too.
Adriano
On 05/06/2018 04:50, Mark Rotteveel wrote:
> On 4-6-2018 17:17, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
>> Procedure name TRANSITION_RULES is renamed to TRANSITIONS. Rules are
>> another thing, it's how the transitions are specified in the tzdb. It
>> may be added at another time.
>>
>> Output columns
On 5-6-2018 11:43, Lester Caine wrote:
On 05/06/18 09:39, Mark Rotteveel wrote:
On 5-6-2018 10:16, Lester Caine wrote:
On 05/06/18 08:50, Mark Rotteveel wrote:
That naming doesn't make much sense to me, and I actually found the
RULE_START and RULE_END naming pretty clear and self-explanatory.
On 05/06/18 09:39, Mark Rotteveel wrote:
On 5-6-2018 10:16, Lester Caine wrote:
On 05/06/18 08:50, Mark Rotteveel wrote:
That naming doesn't make much sense to me, and I actually found the
RULE_START and RULE_END naming pretty clear and self-explanatory.
Except that it's not the rule itself,
On 5-6-2018 10:16, Lester Caine wrote:
On 05/06/18 08:50, Mark Rotteveel wrote:
That naming doesn't make much sense to me, and I actually found the
RULE_START and RULE_END naming pretty clear and self-explanatory.
Except that it's not the rule itself, but the transitions within the
rule ...
On 05/06/18 08:50, Mark Rotteveel wrote:
That naming doesn't make much sense to me, and I actually found the
RULE_START and RULE_END naming pretty clear and self-explanatory.
Except that it's not the rule itself, but the transitions within the
rule ... I'd still like to know why there is a
On 4-6-2018 17:17, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
Procedure name TRANSITION_RULES is renamed to TRANSITIONS. Rules are
another thing, it's how the transitions are specified in the tzdb. It
may be added at another time.
Output columns RULE_START and RULE_END is renamed to INITIAL_TIMESTAMP
11 matches
Mail list logo
