Thom Brown wrote:
> On 24 February 2010 17:07, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Thom Brown <thombrown(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >> > On 24 February 2010 15:54, Bruce Momjian <momjian(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
> >> > + ? ? ?Prior to <productname>PostgreSQL</productname> 7.3, writing just
> >> > + ? ? ?<type>timestamp</type> was equivalent to <type>timestamp with
> >> > + ? ? ?time zone</type>. ?This was changed for SQL compliance.
> >> > You may wish to say what exactly it was changed to.
> >> The previous para says that.
> > Uh, well, the chart says it via syntax, which isn't exactly the same as
> > stating it, and this is particularly important because it is an odd
> > default.
> > I have created an updated paragraph for that section:
> > ? ? ? ?http://momjian.us/tmp/pgsql/datatype-datetime.html
> > ? ? ? ?Note: ?The SQL standard requires that writing just timestamp ?be
> > ? ? ? ?equivalent to timestamp without time zone, and PostgreSQL honors that
> > ? ? ? ?behavior. (Releases prior to 7.3 treated it as timestamp with time
> > ? ? ? ?zone).
> > Is that an improvement?
> Yes, that's clearer, even if that information is inferred in the table
> above (my bad, I should have checked that too).
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
PG East: http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
In response to
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2010-02-25 18:36:14|
|Subject: pgsql: Add C comment that do_to_timestamp() lacks error checking.|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2010-02-25 18:16:53|
|Subject: pgsql: Clearly document that timestamp alone means timestamp without |