| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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.
| 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 |