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.