Re: We're not lax enough about maximum time zone offset from UTC

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Patric Bechtel <patric(dot)bechtel(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: We're not lax enough about maximum time zone offset from UTC
Date: 2012-05-30 23:33:40
Message-ID: 13846.1338420820@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> writes:
> On May 30, 2012, at 3:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> However, as pointed out by Patric, if you dump and restore an old
>> timestamptz value in one of these zones, it will fail to restore because
>> of the sanity check. I think therefore that we'd better enlarge the
>> allowed range to 15:59:59 either way.

> Should you be validating them on a per-time zone basis? Or does it matter?

We can't really --- a given input string should be valid, or not,
independently of what TimeZone is set to. If we change that we're far
too likely to break scenarios that work now.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2012-05-30 23:34:16 Re: Not quite a security hole: CREATE LANGUAGE for non-superusers
Previous Message Fujii Masao 2012-05-30 23:33:33 Re: WalSndWakeup() and synchronous_commit=off