Re: new type proposal
От | Tim Uckun |
---|---|
Тема | Re: new type proposal |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4.2.0.58.20010207000607.00a800b8@mail.diligence.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: new type proposal (Joseph Shraibman <jks@selectacast.net>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
> > > MS sql server has a TIMESTAMP field which acts exactly like LAST_MODIFIED > > type you proposed. I find this field very handy when attempting to > > synchronize data. I would welcome such a field type in postgres. > > > >There already is something called timestamp, and I thought it was a sql >standard type. MS SQL server has a different terminology I think. They use DATETIME to indicate the equavalent of a postgres TIMESTAMP. In sql server timestamp is a read only type that is set by the server. Anytime the row is updated or on insert it puts in a timestamp. Some people have indicated that perhaps this does not belong in the core because it's easily achieved with triggers and I think they have a point but maybe what's really needed are domains. Not just your average every day domains but supercool domains with triggers!. that way you can define a domain called UPDATED using a timestamp field and a insert or an update trigger perhaps even a default value or a check. This would make it easier to insert the same rules and triggers into every table just by adding a field with the defined domain. Interbase support domains which let you define checks and defaults but not triggers. I know this kind of grandiose but it would be cool. ---------------------------------------------- Tim Uckun Mobile Intelligence Unit. ---------------------------------------------- "There are some who call me TIM?" ----------------------------------------------
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: