Tom Lane wrote: > Alexey Klyukin <alexk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Jul 27, 2009, at 6:52 PM, Michael Glaesemann wrote: > >> I don't have a solution, but am curious what your use case is for > >> timetz (as opposed to timestamptz). > > > I'm writing a custom trigger function that has to compare values of > > time* types and make some actions depending on a result. > > It's still fairly unclear why you think that comparing timetz values > is a useful activity. Is "23:32" earlier or later than "00:32"? > How can you tell whether it's the same day or different days? Adding > timezones into that doesn't make it better. > > Our documentation deprecates timetz as a poorly-defined datatype, > and I've never seen a reason to argue with that judgment. I'd suggest > taking a very hard look at why you're not using timestamptz instead. Yeah, well, this is a customer problem, so we're providing a solution to the problem they presented us. The underlying problem is Ruby on Rails doing something silly updating timestamps more often than some small number of milliseconds (or something like that), so what we want is to prevent such an update from happening. The problem being presented is not 23:32 > 00:32 but rather 23:32:23.0001 > 23:32:23.00012. On the border condition that 23:59:59.99999 > 00:00:00.00000 (which is obviously ambiguous) we just avoid the question by doing the update always. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
