Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> No, Jeevan is talking about tzcode, not tzdata. The zoneinfo library is
>> split into two parts, we update the data part at each release, but we
>> don't sync up our code with upstream code changes regularly.
> 
> It strikes me that maybe we are putting ourselves at risk by blithely
> pushing tzdata updates into back branches without also pushing tzcode
> updates.

I believe they're designed to be compatible both ways, I remember that
the 64-bit changes in particular were done in such a way that new tzdata
files work with older tzcode versions. I don't know if anyone else is
testing various combinations, though, so it probably would be good to
update tzcode anyway.

>  However, doing this would mean updating the back branches for
> 64bit tzdata, which is not a small change.  Heikki, do you remember how
> much that patch affected stuff outside the tzcode files proper?

There was no changes outside tzcode files.

--
  Heikki Linnakangas
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

• Re: Server crash with older tzload library at 2010-03-11 19:51:09 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: Server crash with older tzload library at 2010-03-12 19:10:00 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Zdenek Kotala	Date: 2010-03-12 07:43:57
	Subject: Re: gothic_moth, codlin_moth failures on REL8_2_STABLE
Previous:	From: Takahiro Itagaki	Date: 2010-03-12 06:52:07
	Subject: Re: [GENERAL] trouble with to_char('L')