From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: lockhart@fourpalms.org
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Undocumented datetime functions
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 18:47:15 -0500
Message-ID: <6685.982453635@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3A8F0944.30DE0665@alumni.caltech.edu>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0102171729060.933-100000@peter.localdomain>
<3906.982427334@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<3A8F0944.30DE0665@alumni.caltech.edu>
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> ... I don't really care whether what we currently have is
> "timestamp" or "timestamp with time zone", but if, for example, I/we
> implement an SQL9x-conforming "timestamp with time zone" it will not get
> used.
Okay, if we believe those two facts, then calling our existing timestamp
type "timestamp with time zone" does not make us more standards
conformant, it only makes us more verbose. I'd prefer to use the
shorter name for the datatype we believe is actually useful ...
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, lockhart@fourpalms.org, peter_e@gmx.net
Subject: Re: Undocumented datetime functions
In-Reply-To: <6685.982453635@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