Re: [HACKERS] Dates BC.

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>
Cc: Dann Corbit <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>, Kurt Roeckx <Q(at)ping(dot)be>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Dates BC.
Date: 2004-03-29 20:37:07
Message-ID: 200403292037.i2TKb7q13536@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Karel Zak wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 01:12:08AM -0800, Dann Corbit wrote:
> > There is no zero calendar year. The first year of Anno Domini is 1. It's ordinal, not cardinal.
>
> I agree. But the follow quoted code is not use in date_part() there
> Kurt found bug. It's used in to_timestamp() _only_, and it works,
> because tm2timestamp() and date2j() work with zero year.

I have also add a doc mention to my patch that mentions that there is no
0 AD, and therefore subtraction of BC years from AD years must be done
with caution.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Attachment Content-Type Size
unknown_filename text/plain 6.1 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Manfred Koizar 2004-03-29 22:42:54 Re: PostgreSQL block size vs. LVM2 stripe width
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-03-29 20:23:34 Re: int2[] vs int2vector in pg_catalog?

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2004-03-30 03:37:45 pg_dump end comment
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2004-03-29 18:23:32 Re: [HACKERS] Dates BC.