| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Undocumented datetime functions |
| Date: | 2001-02-17 23:47:15 |
| Message-ID: | 6685.982453635@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Roberto Mello | 2001-02-18 00:34:22 | PL/SQL-to-PL/PgSQL-HOWTO beta Available |
| Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2001-02-17 23:29:08 | Re: Undocumented datetime functions |