Re: BUG #18034: Accept the spelling "+infinity" in datetime input is not accurate

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>> in the https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/release-16.html, there is a new
>> feature ：Accept the spelling "+infinity" in datetime input。
>> Actually，"in datetime input " is not accurate.
>> Actually, in the PostgreSQL 16 beta2 edition, the spelling "+infinity" can
>> be used in the following three datatypes:
>> 1.timestamp [ (p) ] [ without time zone ]
>> 2.timestamp [ (p) ] with time zone
>> 3.date
>>
>> and the spelling "+infinity" can not be used in the following two
>> datatypes:
>> 1.time [ (p) ] [ without time zone ]
>> 2.time [ (p) ] with time zone

> We call our timestamp type datetime in some cases, e.g.:
> ...
> I see it in a few other places. Should we rename it other places too?
> I thought datetime was just a short-hand for our date-time types.

I don't see much reason to change anything here. "Datetime" is not
a perfectly strict classification, eg it might or might not include
"interval" depending on context, and I don't want to try to make
that exact.

A more specific release note entry could be "Accept the spelling
'+infinity' for datetime types that accept infinity"; but I'm not
sure it's worth the extra verbiage.

regards, tom lane