On 27.06.24 02:34, David Rowley wrote:
> For the special timestamp stuff, that place is probably the special
> timestamp table in [1]. It looks like the large caution you added in
> 540849814 might not be enough or perhaps wasn't done soon enough to
> catch the people who read that part of the manual before the caution
> was added. Hard to fix if it's the latter without a time machine. :-(
Maybe we should really be thinking about deprecating these special
values and steering users more urgently toward more robust alternatives.
Imagine if 'random' were a valid input value for numeric types.
