Re: BUG #18034: Accept the spelling "+infinity" in datetime input is not accurate

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: msdnchina(at)163(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #18034: Accept the spelling "+infinity" in datetime input is not accurate
Date: 2023-08-10 11:25:51
Message-ID: ZNTJP9Y6fIoJCJ8f@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 10:53:27PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > We call our timestamp type datetime in some cases, e.g.:
> > ...
> > I see it in a few other places. Should we rename it other places too?
> > I thought datetime was just a short-hand for our date-time types.
>
> I don't see much reason to change anything here. "Datetime" is not
> a perfectly strict classification, eg it might or might not include
> "interval" depending on context, and I don't want to try to make
> that exact.
>
> A more specific release note entry could be "Accept the spelling
> '+infinity' for datetime types that accept infinity"; but I'm not
> sure it's worth the extra verbiage.

Yeah, that was my analysis too.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com

Only you can decide what is important to you.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message PG Bug reporting form 2023-08-10 12:31:04 BUG #18053: fastpath count per pid in pg_locks shows > 16 entries
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2023-08-10 07:45:25 Re: BUG #17928: Standby fails to decode WAL on termination of primary