Issue Details (XML | Word | Printable)

Key: CORE-909
Type: New Feature New Feature
Status: Resolved Resolved
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: Minor Minor
Assignee: Adriano dos Santos Fernandes
Reporter: Adam Gardner
Votes: 21
Watchers: 19
Operations

If you were logged in you would be able to see more operations.
Firebird Core

Ability to retrieve Server Current UTC/GMT Timestamp

Created: 28/Aug/06 09:56 PM   Updated: 22/Jan/19 05:38 PM
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: 4.0 Beta 1


 Description  « Hide
Working with Timestamp operations across various countries and states, I am constantly dealing with problems relating to LocalTime vs UTC Time. The include different Timezones and Daylight Savings Time rules.

Firebird currently supports the build in functions

NOW
CURRENT_TIMESTAMP

These functions return the local time as per the server. It would be quite useful to also include:

NOWUTC
CURRENT_TIMESTAMPUTC

which would behave exactly as per their local time counterparts. This would allow Firebird databases to better handle daylight savings time and multiple timezones without requiring UDFs.


 All   Comments   Change History   Subversion Commits      Sort Order: Ascending order - Click to sort in descending order
ohenri added a comment - 21/Sep/06 12:19 PM
Yes this would be very useful especially when using distributed databases on several time zones.

Actually, a UDF needs to be used.

Thomas Braun added a comment - 01/Jul/10 06:07 AM
Firebird is an excellent alternative to MS SQL Server. We want our customers with offices around the world to work on several Firebird servers.
Therefore it's necessary to have a UTC timestamp function used in triggers on the db server. Microsoft has such a function, Oracle needs to use 2 function to achieve that functionality.
But I've seen no possibility to get an UTC timestamp on Firebird.

If you want to replace MS servers in a global business, you have to offer functions needed in global scenarios.

So please, set the priority to major and find a guy who is willing to implement this "small" function.

Thank you!

cew3

Stefan Heymann added a comment - 16/Jul/10 09:37 AM
This issue seems to be the same as CORE-694, which has "Major" priority.

Dmitry Yemanov added a comment - 22/Jan/19 05:38 PM
Resolved as a part of CORE-694.