pgsql: Revert removal of pre-7.4 documenation behavior mentions.

On 24 February 2010 15:54, Bruce Momjian <momjian@postgresql.org> wrote:

Log Message:
-----------
Revert removal of pre-7.4 documenation behavior mentions.

Modified Files:
--------------
   pgsql/doc/src/sgml:
       datatype.sgml (r1.243 -> r1.244)
       (http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/datatype.sgml?r1=1.243&amp;r2=1.244)

+      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.

Thom

Thom Brown <thombrown@gmail.com> writes:

On 24 February 2010 15:54, Bruce Momjian <momjian@postgresql.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.

regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:

Thom Brown <thombrown@gmail.com> writes:

On 24 February 2010 15:54, Bruce Momjian <momjian@postgresql.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?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        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. +

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:

I have created an updated paragraph for that section:

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?

No objection here.

regards, tom lane

On 24 February 2010 17:07, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:

Tom Lane wrote:

Thom Brown <thombrown@gmail.com> writes:

On 24 February 2010 15:54, Bruce Momjian <momjian@postgresql.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).

Thanks,

Thom

Thom Brown wrote:

On 24 February 2010 17:07, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:

Tom Lane wrote:

Thom Brown <thombrown@gmail.com> writes:

On 24 February 2010 15:54, Bruce Momjian <momjian@postgresql.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).

Thanks, applied.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        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. +