From: | Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Conversion errors for datetime fields |
Date: | 2000-12-29 04:13:56 |
Message-ID: | 20001228221356.A8781@lerami.lerctr.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
* Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> [001228 22:01]:
> > SO, we need to allow it as well. I suspect the C99 standard or
> > some other POSIX/SUS/etc standard changed.
>
> C99 *corrects* this error; it specifies 0-60 not 0-61 as the range
> of tm_sec. (It also describes actual support for leap-second
> timekeeping, which the original C standard did not.)
>
> But this is all irrelevant, anyway, unless you want people to install
> atomic clocks before they can run Postgres. We don't have support for
> leap-second timekeeping, and few if any of the platforms we run on
> do either. IMHO, accepting :60 when we do not have the ability to do
> anything correct with it won't improve matters.
>
> regards, tom lane
Ok. I just wanted to mention what I had thought was an
*Authoritative* source.
Thanks for your research time.....
LER
--
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: ler(at)lerctr(dot)org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas T. Thai | 2000-12-29 04:39:57 | regress failed tests.. SERIOUS? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-12-29 04:00:14 | Re: Conversion errors for datetime fields |