On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> TIME WITH
> TIMEZONE is currently transparently swallowed to become equivalent to
> TIME, for reasons spelled out in the docs. I've toyed with the idea of
> implementing the SQL92 version of it, but it is *so* useless and brain
> damaged (cf Date et al) that I (at least so far) cannot bring myself
> to do so. But if and when, it might be ztime internally.
I've read the documentation and SQL92 and I can't see anything wrong with
it. Care to enlighten me?
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden