|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: Use of recent Russian TZ changes in regression tests|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
> Another thought that just occurred to me is that we need to test
> both advance and retreat of a zone's notion of standard time, but
> that doesn't mean that both cases have to be tested in the same
> zone. The 2011 Russian advance is probably reasonable to depend
> on by now, but maybe we could find some other well-documented case
> where a zone's standard time offset decreased relative to UTC.
Ah, here we go:
# From John Stainforth (2007-11-28):
# ... the change for Venezuela originally expected for 2007-12-31 has
# been brought forward to 2007-12-09. The official announcement was
# published today in the "Gaceta Oficial de la Repblica Bolivariana
# de Venezuela, nmero 38.819" (official document for all laws or
# resolution publication)
# Zone NAME GMTOFF RULES FORMAT [UNTIL]
Zone America/Caracas -4:27:44 - LMT 1890
-4:27:40 - CMT 1912 Feb 12 # Caracas Mean Time?
-4:30 - VET 1965 # Venezuela Time
-4:00 - VET 2007 Dec 9 3:00
-4:30 - VET
That 2007 change has the right sign (becoming more negative relative
to UTC), and it seems pretty solidly documented so it's unlikely to
change on us in future. Being in the other direction from Greenwich
shouldn't be an issue, maybe it's even better for coverage purposes.
Hence, proposal: leave the MSK 2011 cases as-is but replace the 2014
cases with comparable testing around the VET 2007 change.
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||Peter Geoghegan||2014-11-18 23:02:57||Re: GIN pageinspect functions|
|Previous Message||Tom Lane||2014-11-18 22:35:37||Re: Use of recent Russian TZ changes in regression tests|