I’m partial to blue myself :p.
David Cook Systems Librarian Prosentient Systems 72/330 Wattle St, Ultimo, NSW 2007 From: Chris Cormack [mailto:ch...@bigballofwax.co.nz] Sent: Thursday, 13 November 2014 2:59 PM To: David Cook Cc: koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org Subject: Re: [Koha-devel] Ambiguous column names I think it should be yellow Chris On 13/11/2014 4:52 pm, "David Cook" <dc...@prosentient.com.au <mailto:dc...@prosentient.com.au> > wrote: Actually, after looking at the `issues` and `reserves` tables, I'm really in favour of getting rid of "timestamp" columns and renaming them more contextually. In the case of `reserves`, I have no idea what `timestamp` means. There's already `reservedate`, `notificationdate`, `reminderdate`, `waitingdate`. It's probably `updated` in that case? As `reservedate` would be `created`? In the case of `issues`, there is already `date_due`, `lastreneweddate`, `returndate`, `issuedate`. I imagine `issuedate` would be `created`. It looks like `timestamp` is `updated` . As I look, it usually matches `lastreneweddate` although timestamp has time while the other does not. I wonder how much we actually use `timestamp` in the code... Of course, if we do change column names, then we'll be screwing up a lot of the existing SQL reports that people have out there which may or may not use timestamp for dating... David Cook Systems Librarian Prosentient Systems 72/330 Wattle St, Ultimo, NSW 2007 > -----Original Message----- > From: koha-devel-boun...@lists.koha-community.org > <mailto:koha-devel-boun...@lists.koha-community.org> [mailto:koha-devel- > <mailto:koha-devel-> > boun...@lists.koha-community.org <mailto:boun...@lists.koha-community.org> ] > On Behalf Of Robin Sheat > Sent: Thursday, 13 November 2014 1:03 PM > To: koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org > <mailto:koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org> > Subject: Re: [Koha-devel] Ambiguous column names > > David Cook schreef op do 13-11-2014 om 12:12 [+1100]: > > I think the best option, if we were to change away from timestamp, > > would have to be "lastmodified", as timestamp types will get updated > > after every insert/update, I believe. But since they'd all be called > > "lastmodified", changing it from "timestamp" would become a bit moot, > > I think. > > Well, I was thinking both, "created" and "updated." So you know when the > record was created, and when it was last changed. Both very handy for > simple auditing or bug finding. > > It's possible to have a timestamp field that is initialised to the current > date > automatically on creation, and another that is auto updated. > > http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/timestamp-initialization.html > > This would nicely mean that there's no code at all in Koha required to > maintain this. > > Anyway, I was just sticking my oar in, I've no desire to bikeshed it into the > ground, anything is better than nothing :) > > -- > Robin Sheat > Catalyst IT Ltd. > ✆ +64 4 803 2204 <tel:%2B64%204%20803%202204> > GPG: 5FA7 4B49 1E4D CAA4 4C38 8505 77F5 B724 F871 3BDF _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org <mailto:Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org> http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
_______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
