Kevin Grittner wrote:
> I assume that the behavior of the server when receiving a timestampz
> within the protocol couldn't be changed to match the handling of a
> literal without breaking significant existing code.
(One more time!)
The parsing of timestamptz is just fine, it's the cast to timestamp that
breaks things.
If we get the server to infer a type for the parameter rather than
explicitly specifying it as timestamptz, then we can avoid that cast.
Then things don't break.
-O