Message-ID: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc-1325-c3126351590@github.com>
From: "michalkoza (@michalkoza)" <noreply+michalkoza@github.com>
To: "pgjdbc/pgjdbc" <noreply+pgjdbc-pgjdbc@github.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2025 09:27:15 +0000
Subject: Re: [pgjdbc/pgjdbc] issue #1325: Additional jsr 310 support
In-Reply-To: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc-1325@github.com>
References: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc-1325@github.com>
List-Id: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc.github.com>
X-GitHub-Author-Login: michalkoza
X-GitHub-Comment-Id: 3126351590
X-GitHub-Comment-Type: issue_comment
X-GitHub-Edited-At: 2025-07-28T09:39:36Z
X-GitHub-Issue: 1325
X-GitHub-Repo: pgjdbc/pgjdbc
X-GitHub-Type: comment
X-GitHub-Url: https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/issues/1325#issuecomment-3126351590
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

@vlsi Thanks for reading my input! 
I should not have said: 
> michalkoza: Instant is a moment in time in UTC.

It is not accurate - it is just default `.toString()` behaviour on this type.

This part of the article represents my point of view: https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Don%27t_Do_This#When_should_you.3F_8

I think that by choosing `Instant` in the app, and `TIMESTAMP` in DB - I'm clearly saying:
"Dear database, I handle time zones on the app side. You do not have to worry about it at all"
Which I think is a super legit approach :) It is hard for me to imagine scenario in which it would be confusing or ambiguous. 

... But I have to admit that learning this:
> timestamptz records a single moment in time. Despite what the name says it doesn't store a timestamp, just a point in time described as the number of microseconds since January 1st, 2000 in UTC

does convince me that `Instant` -> `TIMESTAMPZ` is NOT a bad idea :)