On Sep 7, 2010, at 10:16 AM, Andrew Hutchings wrote: > On 07/09/10 15:54, Tim Soderstrom wrote: >> >> On Sep 7, 2010, at 9:20 AM, Andrew Hutchings wrote: >> >>> On 07/09/10 15:09, Tim Soderstrom wrote: >>>> 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? >>> >>> We could do this too and set the column default to NULL. But this could >>> break some application in the same way since it will not be 0000-00-00 >>> returned any more. So I guess the question is which is the worst of 2 >>> evils ;) >> >> True but that's not a bad thing and, really, should be expected when moving >> to Drizzle due to the differences to MySQL. I like NULL here over a date >> since that's the way it probably should have been in the first place. It >> would be a dangerous evil for Drizzle to try and support poorly written >> applications. For those that cannot modify the application, they should >> simply continue to use MySQL is my thought. The reason Drizzle is not >> allowing 0000-00-00 is because it's an invalid date. Using 0001-01-01 is not >> invalid, but not correct either. > > That is a good point. I like it. > > Any thoughts on the TIME -> DATETIME conversion. That one doesn't seem too > nice but without converting to something completely different I haven't seen > a nicer way yet.
The lat time that came up on this list, some of the thoughts were to convert TIME to an integer (seconds basically) or something like that. That came up directly for me because I was using TIME as a duration, which can be calculated by storing total seconds. TIME and DURATION types would be nice but, for now, I think seems reasonable, though certainly TIME is more of a grey area here. 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
