On 8/12/21 7:25 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I thought we found that changing behavior via GUC usually ends badly.
>> Yeah. Changing from SQL-spec to not-SQL-spec behavior is going to be
>> one tough sell to begin with, even without the point that that's been
>> our behavior for over two decades. But proposing to do it via a GUC
>> is just not-even-worth-discussing territory. That would force every
>> wannabe-portable program to cope with both behaviors; which would
>> end up meaning that not only do you still have to take care to write
>> WITH TIME ZONE when you want that, but *also* you'd have to be sure
>> to write WITHOUT TIME ZONE when you want that. In short, the worst
>> of both worlds.
> All of which I agree with, but this wasn't a cute idea of mine, this
> was what our users have requested because of the extreme annoyance
> caused by the current behavior.
>
What do other DBMSs do? This strikes me as primarily an education issue
(I did a webinar on it not that long ago)
If you want to protect against people using tz-less timestamp, maybe an
event trigger would be a solution, although maybe that's using a
sledgehammer to crack a nut.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
