On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 13:10, Jayce^ wrote: > On Monday 20 October 2003 01:56 pm, Corey Edwards wrote: > > On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 12:29, Gary Thornock wrote: > > > It is a good default, actually -- so long as you understand that the > > > timestamp type is intended for tracking "last modified" rather than > > > "created". > > > > It's a useful feature, no doubt, but setting a field to automatically > > modify itself by default (ie. not by explicit user request) is a poor > > decision IMHO. I wrote an application just recently that had 4 timestamp > > columns in one table, none of which should have been updated in that > > fashion. Had I been using MySQL, I would have had to work around that > > feature. > > Then you wouldnt' have used 'timestamp' but rather datetime, or other field > types.
Yes, but datetime isn't a standard datatype across databases (eg. Postgres and Oracle) and I want my application to be portable. Corey ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
