> > I am seeing the attached regression diffs on timetz, which passed
> > last week. It looks like all of these are related to the fact that
> > unmarked timetz values are now presumed to be PST (-8) not PST (-7).
> Sigh, make that "PST (-8) not PDT (-7)"
Whatever. I'll look at them to see if I can formulate a test which fills
in the blanks correctly.
Nothing like a useless data type which is *also* a pita :/
- Thomas