* 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
Thanks for your research time.....
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
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Thomas T. Thai||Date: 2000-12-29 04:39:57|
|Subject: regress failed tests.. SERIOUS?|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2000-12-29 04:00:14|
|Subject: Re: Conversion errors for datetime fields |