Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 07:25:51 -0400
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: msdnchina@163.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #18034: Accept the spelling "+infinity" in datetime input is
 not accurate
Message-ID: <ZNTJP9Y6fIoJCJ8f@momjian.us>
References: <18034-08e668401be826ed@postgresql.org>
 <ZNRN1aF0Ls2SbleN@momjian.us>
 <26522.1691636007@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <26522.1691636007@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZNTJP9Y6fIoJCJ8f%40momjian.us>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug  9, 2023 at 10:53:27PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > We call our timestamp type datetime in some cases, e.g.:
> > ...
> > I see it in a few other places.  Should we rename it other places too? 
> > I thought datetime was just a short-hand for our date-time types.
> 
> I don't see much reason to change anything here.  "Datetime" is not
> a perfectly strict classification, eg it might or might not include
> "interval" depending on context, and I don't want to try to make
> that exact.
> 
> A more specific release note entry could be "Accept the spelling
> '+infinity' for datetime types that accept infinity"; but I'm not
> sure it's worth the extra verbiage.

Yeah, that was my analysis too.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Only you can decide what is important to you.