EDIT: also I wouldn’t consider this egregious. If the Senior explains and the person was happy to learn something then that’s a good outcome. If they are stubborn about it, then that wouldn’t be great.
EDIT: also I wouldn’t consider this egregious. If the Senior explains and the person was happy to learn something then that’s a good outcome. If they are stubborn about it, then that wouldn’t be great.
I've seen far worse things than this done to a SQL database though…
Just have a look at the list from Wikipedia [1] and notice how many repeats there are.
As an example AMT could be either UTC+4 or UTC-4.
And this doesn't even includes the various local acronyms that people use around the world.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_time_zone_abbreviation...
IANA time zone identifiers are fully-qualified and unambiguous like America/Los_Angeles or Asia/Kolkata.
If you don't use these, you will inevitably be somewhat wrong due to leap issues, political changes in time, or the like.
If you are trying to store dates and not timestamps, that’s what you want, otherwise equality tests might not work right.
> (The integers stored are usually POSIX timestamps.)
For date types, if they exist distinctly, usually not.