On Sep 6, 2010, at 12:22 PM, Patrick Crews wrote: > At first glance, this looks really good to me. > > The only thing that makes my spider-sense tingle is this: > any date data containing 0000-00-00 -> 0001-01-01 > > I agree we need a conversion, but what if the table also contains date data > with '0001-01-01' (Who can say what depraved use of special dates exist out > there?) ; ) > > Of course, we can document this heavily so people will know what to expect > and can adapt as they see fit. It seems nicer than trying to think too much > for the user.
I dunno how I feel about that one. Would it not be possible to convert 0000-00-00 to NULL? As both describe a date which is, in reality, undefined? Tim S. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
