Thom Brown wrote: > On 24 February 2010 17:07, Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> wrote: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Thom Brown <[email protected]> writes: > >> > On 24 February 2010 15:54, Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> 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).
Thanks, applied. -- Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com PG East: http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers
