We don't have it. Its just that it is misleading to have 'timestamp with
time zone' as description of this type, when 'timestamp without time zone'
does not exist. (Actually, if you try to create a field as 'timestamp
without time zone', you get timestamp anyway). Since you can't have
'without', why mention that the type has a time zone?
-alex
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Let's switch 'timestamp with time zone' back to 'timestamp'. This just
> > makes no sense.
>
> I wasn't following that discussion. Why would we have a timestamp with
> no timezone anyway?
>
>
