Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80B244766A4 for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:40:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from wolff.to (wolff.to [66.93.197.35]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7FF61476695 for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:39:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 18155 invoked by uid 500); 22 Nov 2002 15:50:09 -0000 Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:50:09 -0600 From: Bruno Wolff III To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: 7.3 rc1 timestamp description typos Message-ID: <20021122155009.GA18029@wolff.to> Mail-Followup-To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org References: <20021122140047.GA17297@wolff.to> <24035.1037978529@sss.pgh.pa.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <24035.1037978529@sss.pgh.pa.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200211/28 X-Sequence-Number: 1552 On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:22:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruno Wolff III writes: > > In section 5.5.1.3 the following paragraph has a couple of typos: > > I think I fixed all that yesterday; please look at the current doc > snapshot. > http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/datatype-datetime.html > > regards, tom lane It does look OK in the development docs. I wasn't expecting a lot of changes in the docs to be going on so I thought my local rc1 copy would be relatively current. However that was not a good assumption since I see that a lot of date/time documentation has been changed very recently.