=>> =>> I definitely agree for the need for this. But the changed attribute is =>> inserted by the person who registers the object, not by the database =>> software, he has the full control over which timezone he uses and to =>> lie. =>> =>> May be what we really want is a timestamp field with the granularity =>> you suggest and in UTC zone, but inserted to the objects automatically =>> by the database software. I see a lot of value in this. =>> => I completely agree with you. This can only be done if the database software => sets the time stamp. I guess this also solves most of the race conditions => otherwise implied. = =This would most definitely be a significant improvement (but is a =different point than the "changed" field) I believe this is on the =the list of Open Issues to be reviewed next week. If not it will be =then. = =Greetings, = =-- Carol Carol, I'm aware of that. And yes, in principle (by definition) the submitter of an object has to care about the date field supplied. But! - first of all, the DB-SW checks the date supplied against a date "in the future" (or has done that?, I think) and, - if *no* date field is supplied int the update message, then the software supplies the local date. And this *can* make a diference, isn't it? Of course, solving that in a decent way is preferred. Otoh, if (as long as) we rely on the user, we might add an (optional?) offset +/-xx hours from GMT if "The Solution to Everything" takes another couple of month to implement. (We might end up with 42 for a solution anyway :-) Cheers and let's see next week, Wiflried. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at Computer Center - ACOnet : Vienna University : Tel: +43 1 4065822 355 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4065822 170 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : NIC: WW144 --------------------------------------------------------------------------