Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [209.114.132.154])
	by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1HGT1x16080
	for <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 11:29:01 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1HGSs903909;
	Sat, 17 Feb 2001 11:28:54 -0500 (EST)
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org>
Subject: Re: Undocumented datetime functions 
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0102171729060.933-100000@peter.localdomain> 
References: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0102171729060.933-100000@peter.localdomain>
Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
	message dated "Sat, 17 Feb 2001 17:34:57 +0100"
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 11:28:54 -0500
Message-ID: <3906.982427334@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Archive-Number: 200102/103
X-Sequence-Number: 361

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Hmm, I'm confused.  The timestamp type doesn't actually have a time zone
> stored, does it?  Why did you want it to be dumped as "timestamp with time
> zone" then?

Andreas pointed that out awhile ago.  I'm inclined to agree: equating
timestamp to timestamp with time zone is dead wrong, and we should
revert that pg_dump change.

			regards, tom lane