Received: from localhost (wm.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4981D9FB31C for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2006 11:18:12 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 11529-05-3 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2006 14:17:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from community1.commandprompt.com (host-130.commandprompt.net [207.173.203.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10AD89FB31A for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2006 11:17:58 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.27.150] ([12.38.10.44]) (authenticated bits=0) by community1.commandprompt.com (8.13.5.20060308/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id k94EHq2i005869 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 4 Oct 2006 07:17:54 -0700 Message-ID: <4523C28F.4080404@dunslane.net> Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 10:17:51 -0400 From: Andrew Dunstan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.8.0.6) Gecko/20060804 Fedora/1.0.4-0.5.1.fc5 SeaMonkey/1.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Markus Schaber CC: PostgreSQL-development hackers Subject: Re: timestamptz alias References: <45218F90.1050303@logix-tt.com> <794403F6-6CB5-4726-806C-5EF76D64C7E3@themactionfaction.com> <34B58049-42F3-468D-AA2A-AE79DC8FB244@decibel.org> <45222B63.2070608@logix-tt.com> <26117.1159889582@sss.pgh.pa.us> <452381C8.5090804@logix-tt.com> In-Reply-To: <452381C8.5090804@logix-tt.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.135 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200610/222 X-Sequence-Number: 92119 Markus Schaber wrote: > It's not only about documenting the pure existence of the aliases (which > was already documented in the table on the datatype TOC page), it's also > about telling the user which of the names are the ones to avoid, and the > reasons to do so. > > > *blink* Why do any need to be avoided? What you use is a matter of taste, and your organisation's coding standards. From a purely technical POV I don't see any reason to avoid using either the canonical type names or the various aliases. cheers andrew