Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [209.114.132.154])
	by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1HNlPx53717
	for <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 18:47:25 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1HNlF906688;
	Sat, 17 Feb 2001 18:47:16 -0500 (EST)
To: lockhart@fourpalms.org
cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Undocumented datetime functions 
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>
Comments: In-reply-to Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
	message dated "Sat, 17 Feb 2001 23:29:08 +0000"
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 18:47:15 -0500
Message-ID: <6685.982453635@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Archive-Number: 200102/106
X-Sequence-Number: 364

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