Edit. Fuck HN.
"The hours part may be so large because the TIME type can be used not only to represent a time of day (which must be less than 24 hours), but also elapsed time or a time interval between two events (which may be much greater than 24 hours, or even negative)." [1]
How is the author's usage incorrect? Sure there's a documented allowed range, but it seems to me that the complaint is about the poor size of the range relative to other SQL technologies.
Those who use it and get burned didn't get the main message.
Uhh, done?
"The issue" is that MySQL has a TIME type that is goofy as all get-out, and this guy's friend had a bug that prompted him to look into the TIME type and find out how goofy it is. I don't recall him complaining that it's not in the docs (since that's where he looked it up). The bug was only a story, the thing that prompted him to look into it. Take a breath, this isn't StackOverflow (not that being rude and offended/butthurt is welcome there either).
Well isn't this complaint basically the last paragraph of TFA verbatim?
Because that's why. He likes PostgreSQL and you need to know about it.
The moment the author wrote "I normally use PostgreSQL" I knew that this would devolve into a "MySQL Bad" even if it's well defined and documented behavior.
> for a brief moment I assumed the incorrection in this value was the hundreds of hours, as one could reasonably assume that maybe TIME values were capped at 24 hours, or that a different syntax was needed for values spanning multiple days
And then it turned out that wasn't the case and they basically got nerd-sniped by the issue into finding out why the type had such weird bounds.
This outlines his expectations, and his biases, quite clearly. Also see: the title of the article.
Besides, I don't use databases all that much and I don't write blog posts either, but if I did, and I came across this issue, this might be the exact article I would write (except the liking Postgres thing).
No, it does not. What it does is explain why they are admittedly "not too experienced with MySQL" and didn't straight remember that obviously the range of MySQL's TIME type is '-838:59:59' to '838:59:59' so 960 would be out of range.
Also please don't staple dicks onto people, the author's gender is irrelevant to the article and it's very disturbing.
> Also see: the title of the article.
The title of the article, and the introduction you're quoting, follow from the article itself. Unless you're calling the author a liar and think they made up the entire thing just to bash mysql.
That the author ultimately considers the behaviour of MySQL's TIME type and its bounds "a WTF"… is entirely defensible.