| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Stephen Birch <sbirch(at)ironmountainsystems(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: date/time type changes |
| Date: | 2000-01-05 04:56:28 |
| Message-ID: | 200001050456.XAA04152@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Wouldn't it make more sense to rename timestamp to datetime because
> > datetime is the ANSI name? Just asking.
>
> timestamp is the SQL92 name for the date+time data type. datetime was
> a name concocted by me to avoid conflicting with other possible
> standard names when I first implemented the "new and improved"
> date/time types. Am I missing something in my recollection??
I had refered to datetime in my book, thinking that was the standard
name. I now see it is TIMESTAMP. Good thing someone asked about this.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-01-05 06:56:14 | Y2K glitch in pgsql mail list archives |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-01-05 04:44:14 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: date/time type changes |