"Trevor Talbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually, what I meant at least (not sure if others meant it), is
> storing the value in the timezone it was entered, along with what zone
> that was. That makes the value stable with respect to the zone it
> belongs to, instead of being stable with respect to UTC. When DST
> rules change, the value is in effect "reinterpreted" as if it were
> input using the new rules.
What happens if the rules change in a way that makes the value illegal
or ambiguous (ie, it now falls into a DST gap)?
But perhaps more to the point, please show use-cases demonstrating that
this behavior is more useful than the pure-UTC behavior. For storage of
actual time observations, I think pure-UTC is unquestionably the more
useful. Peter's example of a future appointment time is a possible
counterexample, but as observed upthread it's hardly clear which
behavior is more desirable in such a case.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
