From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Oliver Elphick <olly@lfix.co.uk>
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: timestamp() functions still documented
Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 10:02:36 -0400
Message-ID: <6679.1020434556@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1020415612.11662.17.camel@linda>
References: <1020415612.11662.17.camel@linda>
Oliver Elphick <olly@lfix.co.uk> writes:
> 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?
Not unless you want to break the cast operations that use these
functions. OID 2025 isn't a cast and perhaps should be renamed,
but the rest are correct as-is.
I do agree that something needs to be done with the documentation...
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, olly@lfix.co.uk
Subject: Re: timestamp() functions still documented
In-Reply-To: <6679.1020434556@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox