| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Trevor Talbot" <quension(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Aidan Van Dyk" <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Magne =?iso-8859-1?q?M=E6hre?=" <Magne(dot)Mahre(at)sun(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Timezone database changes |
| Date: | 2007-10-10 17:14:18 |
| Message-ID: | 200710101914.19245.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Am Mittwoch, 10. Oktober 2007 schrieb Tom Lane:
> Peter's example of a future appointment time is a possible
> counterexample, but as observed upthread it's hardly clear which
> behavior is more desirable in such a case.
Whereas the most realistic solution to my example might be, "the parties
involved reconfirm their appointment", I expect that public transportation
companies such as railways and airlines have specific rules to deal with
these situations. That might give us some insight what the
industrial-strength resolution could be, even if we deem it inappropriate to
implement it at the end. So if someone has knowledge in that area, I'd be
interested.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andy Colson | 2007-10-10 17:17:11 | full text search in 8.3 |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-10-10 17:13:46 | Re: Skytools committed without hackers discussion/review |