Ok, i've been told to bring this up on this mailing list, so, I do so: rather than kill myself re-explaining, i'll just cut&paste my email correspondence. I said: can't create timestamp field (only timestamp with time zone) the response was: Those are the same data types. then I said: xxiii writes: > Well, please document it as such then, as SQL definately implies that > they are not the same (admittedly, i'm using SQL92 and not SQL99, which I > don't have a copy of), as does postgres's documentation, and also the > fact that one can create a time field with and without timezone. > > http://postgresql.crimelabs.net/users-lounge/docs/7.1/user/datatype-datetime.html > > This is very confusing, as is the fact that pre 7.1 postgres shows > "timestamp" and 7.1 shows "timestamp with time zone", neither version > seems to be willing to create the other variant (presumably because they > are really the same as far as postgres (but not its documentation) are > concerned). I definately need the "without time zone" behaviour and > range. > > If postgres is really using the same type internally to implement both > behaviours that should be documented, along with how it works. > > I've just done some additional testing, and find that the timestamp type > does appear to support the wider range, and is acting like the "without > time zone" version, in spite of "\d table" saying "with time zone". > However its output incorrectly, when years exceed 10000. > > insert into test values('05-05-12080', '05-05-12080 1:1:1-7:00'); > insert into test values('05-05-12080', '05-05-12080 1:1:1+7:00'); > > select * from test; > w | o > ---------------------+--------------------- > 2080-05-05 00:00:00 | 2080-05-05 00:00:00 > 2080-05-05 00:00:00 | 2080-05-05 08:01:01 > 12080-05-05 00:0000 | 12080-05-05 08:0101 > 12080-05-05 00:0000 | 12080-05-04 18:0101 > (4 rows) then I got told to bring it up here. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
