On 05/31/2011 09:45 AM, hernan gonzalez wrote:
I'm doing some tests with date-time related fields to design my web
application.
I was already dissatisfied with Postgresql handling of timezones
concepts (issue
already discussed here - not entirely PG's fault, rather a SQL thing)
and I vehemently
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 04:00:21PM -0300, hernan gonzalez wrote:
> frequently (mostly?)
> access the DB remotely and from a client interface (eg. JDBC), one
> would say that the
> display/interpret (from to a string) ocurrs normally in an upper
> layer, not in the DB.
In my experience, FWIW, hand
On 05/31/2011 12:00 PM, hernan gonzalez wrote:
There are any number of
server-side settings that can affect the interpretation (and display)
of your data. Datestyle for example already renders this position
untenable.
What makes me a little uncomfortable in this assertion -and in many
parts
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:45 AM, hernan gonzalez wrote:
> In this scenario, I assumed the natural convention is: store just a
> UTC time, using a TIMESTAMP. I believe that's the idea
> of a plain TIMESTAMP.
No a plain timestamp has no timezone, UTC or otherwise. it's more
like what you'd use if
> There are any number of
> server-side settings that can affect the interpretation (and display)
> of your data. Datestyle for example already renders this position
> untenable.
What makes me a little uncomfortable in this assertion -and in many
parts of PG docs-
is that emphasis put on what "is
hernan gonzalez writes:
> I'm doing some tests with date-time related fields to design my web
> application.
> I was already dissatisfied with Postgresql handling of timezones
> concepts (issue
> already discussed here - not entirely PG's fault, rather a SQL thing)
> and I vehemently
> reject the
> -Original Message-
> From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-
> ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of hernan gonzalez
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 12:45 PM
> To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: [GENERAL] Some clarification about TIMESTAMP
>
> I vehemently rej