Trevor Talbot wrote:
> Thinking that it might have had out of date zone rules brings up an
> interesting scenario though. Consider a closed (no networking or
> global interest) filing system in a local organization's office, where
> it's used to record the minutes of meetings and such via human input.
> It would seem that the correct time to record in that case is in fact
> the local time, not UTC. If that system is left alone for years, and
> does not receive any zone rule updates, it will likely begin storing
> the wrong UTC values. When the data is later transported out
> (upgrade, archive, whatever), it will be incorrect unless you use that
> particular snapshot of the zone rules.
>
> That situation might sound a bit contrived, but I think the real point
> is that even for some records of observed times, the local time is the
> authoritative one, not UTC.
...and for that scenario you have TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE
--Magne
