On 8/12/21 7:25 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > I thought we found that changing behavior via GUC usually ends badly. >> Yeah. Changing from SQL-spec to not-SQL-spec behavior is going to be >> one tough sell to begin with, even without the point that that's been >> our behavior for over two decades. But proposing to do it via a GUC >> is just not-even-worth-discussing territory. That would force every >> wannabe-portable program to cope with both behaviors; which would >> end up meaning that not only do you still have to take care to write >> WITH TIME ZONE when you want that, but *also* you'd have to be sure >> to write WITHOUT TIME ZONE when you want that. In short, the worst >> of both worlds. > All of which I agree with, but this wasn't a cute idea of mine, this > was what our users have requested because of the extreme annoyance > caused by the current behavior. >
What do other DBMSs do? This strikes me as primarily an education issue (I did a webinar on it not that long ago) If you want to protect against people using tz-less timestamp, maybe an event trigger would be a solution, although maybe that's using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
