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

Re: Conversion errors for datetime fields

From: Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Conversion errors for datetime fields
Date: 2000-12-29 04:13:56
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-bugs
* Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> [001228 22:01]:
> > SO, we need to allow it as well.  I suspect the C99 standard or 
> > some other POSIX/SUS/etc standard changed. 
> C99 *corrects* this error; it specifies 0-60 not 0-61 as the range
> of tm_sec.  (It also describes actual support for leap-second
> timekeeping, which the original C standard did not.)
> But this is all irrelevant, anyway, unless you want people to install
> atomic clocks before they can run Postgres.  We don't have support for
> leap-second timekeeping, and few if any of the platforms we run on
> do either.  IMHO, accepting :60 when we do not have the ability to do
> anything correct with it won't improve matters.
> 			regards, tom lane
Ok.  I just wanted to mention what I had thought was an
*Authoritative* source. 

Thanks for your research time.....


Larry Rosenman           
Phone: +1 972-414-9812                 E-Mail: ler(at)lerctr(dot)org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749

In response to

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Thomas T. ThaiDate: 2000-12-29 04:39:57
Subject: regress failed tests.. SERIOUS?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-12-29 04:00:14
Subject: Re: Conversion errors for datetime fields

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group