Re: tzcode update

"Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> I was not able to find anything like release notes that would list the
> differences between tzcode2003e, which I believe is the version that we
> included back then, and the latest version tzcode2007k. So I just took a
> diff between those, and deduced from there what has changed.

Oh good, this has been on my to-do list for awhile ... but I'm happy
to let you do it ;-)

> I don't really know how to test this. It passes the regression tests,
> after the fixes to pg_dst_next_boundary, but I was expecting there to be
> some failures now that we support timezones for timestamps outside the
> 32-bit time_t range. Apparently our tests don't cover that?

Unless the 64-bit extension changed the semantics a lot more than I
think, any given compiled tzdata file covers only a finite range of
years. The extension makes it *possible* for the data to extend outside
the time_t range, but you won't actually see a difference in behavior
unless (a) you do extend the range (what's zic's default now?) and
(b) you test a date falling within the extended range. So I'm not
too surprised that there are no cases in the regression tests that
notice. We should probably add some reaching out to 2100 or so.

regards, tom lane