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.

Mon, 09 Jul 2001 17:26:55 -0600
Dave Martin <xxiii@cyberdude.com>
timestamp not consistent with documentation or standard
Dave Martin <xxiii@cyberdude.com> writes:
> 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.

Actually, what you should have done was consult the archives of this
list.  You will find that you have wandered into the no man's land
of an armed conflict :-(.  Unless you have some new argument that will
persuade one camp or the other to concede, it's unlikely that the
naming of the timestamp type (there is only one, and no visible interest
in implementing more) will change soon.


>> 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

This is definitely a bug --- looks like EncodeDateTime fails to consider
the possibility that the output of sprintf will be longer than "normal".
Will fix.

			regards, tom lane

Mon, 09 Jul 2001 20:07:42 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: timestamp not consistent with documentation or standard 