Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Conversion errors for datetime fields

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Conversion errors for datetime fields
Date: 2000-12-28 17:33:07
Message-ID: 5580.978024787@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org> writes:
> Aren't we *REQUIRED* by SQL99 to accept up to :61 to account for 
> leap seconds?

60, maybe --- I have not looked at the SQL spec.  61 is a widely
repeated mistake; there never have been and never will be two leap
seconds in the same minute (cf. NTP spec, RFC1305, esp. appendix E).
But in reality, since we are using Unix-based timekeeping which does not
cope with leap seconds, it is pointless to consider :60 as meaning a
leap second.  I think it's better to continue to regard it as an error.
The only other thing we could do with it is treat 00:00:60 as meaning
the same as 00:01:00, which is not really correct behavior.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Larry RosenmanDate: 2000-12-29 01:39:01
Subject: Re: Conversion errors for datetime fields
Previous:From: Larry RosenmanDate: 2000-12-28 17:16:25
Subject: Re: Conversion errors for datetime fields

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group