Re: [HACKERS] timetz storage vs timestamptz

2006-10-05 Thread Jim Nasby

On Oct 3, 2006, at 5:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Why is it timestamptz can store a date and time to 1 microsecond in 8
bytes but a timetz needs 12 to store just the time to 1 microsecond?


It's tracking the timezone explicitly ... something that timestamptz
really ought to do too.


Wow, the docs are totally unclear on that. I believe that explains  
bug 2661.


Yes, it would be nice to store the timezone in timestamptz or an  
equivalent, but there's also a use for the current behavior. In many  
cases, you don't care what the original timezone was; you just want  
to make sure that everything is getting stored in UTC (and then  
converted to your local timezone on the way back out).


I'm thinking time[stamp], time[stamp]tz (which should do what timetz  
does), and time[stamp]utc (doing what timestamptz does).


In the meantime I'll try and clarify the docs on this.
--
Jim Nasby[EMAIL PROTECTED]
EnterpriseDB  http://enterprisedb.com  512.569.9461 (cell)



---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings


Re: [HACKERS] timetz storage vs timestamptz

2006-10-03 Thread Tom Lane
Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 Why is it timestamptz can store a date and time to 1 microsecond in 8
 bytes but a timetz needs 12 to store just the time to 1 microsecond?

It's tracking the timezone explicitly ... something that timestamptz
really ought to do too.

regards, tom lane

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
   subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
   message can get through to the mailing list cleanly