| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dave Stewart <dstewart(at)aquaflo(dot)com>, pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Date and Time or Timestamp? |
| Date: | 2003-04-30 15:39:41 |
| Message-ID: | 22481.1051717181@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-novice |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> And, on the up side, if the various *nixes fix their time zone behaviour past
> 2037, then Postgres will be automatically fixed as well, yes?
Depends what the new API looks like. I would think that a sane answer
is to redefine time_t as a signed 64-bit value, preserving the 1/1/1970
zero origin, but who knows what the library people will really do?
glibc's recent move to redefine time_t as unsigned (losing support for
all pre-1970 dates) doesn't give me high confidence in their design
sensibility.
In any case you can bet that we'll have some work to do when a better
API is available.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mike Porter | 2003-04-30 15:54:58 | |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2003-04-30 15:30:05 | Re: Date and Time or Timestamp? |