Re: timestamp vs. timestamptz comparisons inconsistently ordered under DST

From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jacob Brazeal <jacob(dot)brazeal(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: timestamp vs. timestamptz comparisons inconsistently ordered under DST
Date: 2026-07-31 04:57:32
Message-ID: d8458de3779941e2d2d7751c85ee5a4eb1d4c22c.camel@cybertec.at
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 2026-07-27 at 13:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> So far I don't like any of the choices :-(

If nobody can think of a smart solution, should I try to add an
(embarrassing) warning note to the documentation, or do we simply
sweep it under the carpet?

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Lakhin 2026-07-31 05:00:01 Re: 030_pg_recvlogical fails because the same PID is assigned
Previous Message shveta malik 2026-07-31 04:40:55 Re: [PATCH] Release replication slot on error in SQL-callable slot functions