On 12 December 2013 15:03, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >>> On 12 December 2013 11:05, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>>>> My suggestion would be to add the TZ to the checkpoint record. This >>>>> way all users of WAL can see the TZ of the master and act accordingly. >>>>> I'll do a separate patch for that. >> >>>> Intuitively I'd say that might be useful - but I am not reall sure what >>>> for. And we don't exactly have a great interface for looking at a >>>> checkpoint's data. Maybe add it to the control file instead? >> >>> That's actually what I had in mind, I just phrased it badly in mid-thought. >> >> I don't think you realize what a can of worms that would be. There's >> no compact representation of "a timezone", unless you are only proposing >> to store the UTC offset; and frankly I'm not particularly seeing the point >> of that. > > +1. I can see the point of storing a timestamp in each checkpoint > record, if we don't already, but time zones should be completely > irrelevant to this feature. Everything should be reckoned in seconds > since the epoch.
Don't panic guys! I meant UTC offset only. And yes, it may not be needed, will check. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
