7 ms·
The problem here is that one word ("timestamp") is used to mean two completely different things: 1) a datatype (date with time) 2) a pseudo-version number for
by brown9-2 16y ago
The problem here is that one word ("timestamp") is used to mean two completely different things:
1) a datatype (date with time)
2) a pseudo-version number for concurrency control
Both are equally as valid, and depending on your background, when you see the word "timestamp" with zero context you may automatically refer in your head to one definition or another.
I don't see what the problem here is if you expect #1 but got #2 when you used MySQL. This seems like the type of problem that bites you the very first time you encounter it, and then you read the documentation and say "Oh I understand, 'timestamp' has a different definition here, what I really need is the 'foo' datatype. Isn't that it interesting that one word can have more than one meaning!"
- prodigal_erik 16y agoISO standards define the meaning of "timestamp" in SQL. MySQL actually implements the standard type, but gives it the wrong name! They should have used some other name for the bizzare mishmash of data type and trigger they also invented.
- xzilla 16y ago"Both are equally valid", except that the former (a data type) is more equally valid than the latter (pseudo-version), since the SQL Standard defines it that way.