Received: from localhost.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 465CF475EC5 for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 10:25:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from myst.fourpalms.org (fourpalms.org [64.3.68.148]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2275E47650F for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 10:15:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fourpalms.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by myst.fourpalms.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8D4D68A1; Fri, 3 May 2002 07:15:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CD29B8E.93F5701F@fourpalms.org> Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 07:15:42 -0700 From: Thomas Lockhart Organization: Yes X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.8-34.1mdk i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Oliver Elphick Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: timestamp() functions still documented References: <1020415612.11662.17.camel@linda> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200205/3 X-Sequence-Number: 1361 ... > There are seven timestamp() functions in pg_proc and I don't think any > of them can be used; should they not be removed or renamed? They are used internally for type coersion. The problem is only at the parser level, where SQL9x mandates a conflicting syntax. - Thomas