On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Greg Stark [via PostgreSQL] < ml-node+s1045698n5816903...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Kevin Grittner <[hidden email] > <http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=5816903&i=0>> wrote: > > It was actually rather disappointing to hear that we had a > > conforming implementation and changed away from it circa the 7.2 > > release; and even more disturbing to hear that decision is still > > being defended on the grounds that there's no point providing > > standard conforming behavior if we can think of different behavior > > that we feel is more useful. We should have both. > > I don't think the behaviour was standards-compliant in 7.2 either. For > that matter, I can't think of any circumstance where the standard > behaviour is useful. There's absolutely no way to write correct code > using it. > > > And forcing people to change their data types to migrate to PostgreSQL is undesirable IF our type is usefully equivalent to others in the majority of situations - though I don't know if that is actually the case. David J. -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Why-data-of-timestamptz-does-not-store-value-of-timezone-passed-to-it-tp5816703p5816906.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
