On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> On 12 December 2013 11:05, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>>> My suggestion would be to add the TZ to the checkpoint record. This >>>> way all users of WAL can see the TZ of the master and act accordingly. >>>> I'll do a separate patch for that. > >>> Intuitively I'd say that might be useful - but I am not reall sure what >>> for. And we don't exactly have a great interface for looking at a >>> checkpoint's data. Maybe add it to the control file instead? > >> That's actually what I had in mind, I just phrased it badly in mid-thought. > > I don't think you realize what a can of worms that would be. There's > no compact representation of "a timezone", unless you are only proposing > to store the UTC offset; and frankly I'm not particularly seeing the point > of that.
+1. I can see the point of storing a timestamp in each checkpoint record, if we don't already, but time zones should be completely irrelevant to this feature. Everything should be reckoned in seconds since the epoch. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
