Received: from localhost.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23673475BC1 for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 10:14:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC81A475EAE for ; Fri, 3 May 2002 10:02:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g43E2bv06683; Fri, 3 May 2002 10:02:37 -0400 (EDT) To: Oliver Elphick Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: timestamp() functions still documented In-reply-to: <1020415612.11662.17.camel@linda> References: <1020415612.11662.17.camel@linda> Comments: In-reply-to Oliver Elphick message dated "03 May 2002 09:46:51 +0100" Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 10:02:36 -0400 Message-ID: <6679.1020434556@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Archive-Number: 200205/2 X-Sequence-Number: 1360 Oliver Elphick 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