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

Re: Date/Time Types : internals

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: <cousinflo(at)free(dot)fr>,<pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Date/Time Types : internals
Date: 2012-04-18 19:39:16
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-docs
Florence Cousin <cousinflo(at)free(dot)fr> wrote:
> At the bottom of the page about Date/Time types (
> )
> there is this sentence :
> Date conventions before the 19th century make for interesting
> reading, but are not consistent enough to warrant coding into a
> date/time handler.
> This sentence seemed very strange to me, and I am not sure to
> really understand what it implies (or not) for the user. Could
> someone explain that this really means and implies?
You can get some idea by reading this page, especially the
"Adoption" section:
I guess the point is that for hundreds of years, the same day could
have a different date depending which country's calendar you were
looking at.  I'm not entirely clear why there's a problem if you
pick the Gregorian calendar and apply it retroactively.  If George
Washington was able to adapt to his birthday changing, I think I
could deal with it, too:
II mean, there are still a lot of other calendars in use today, and
we don't let that stop us from using the Gregorian calendar.

In response to


pgsql-docs by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-04-18 20:14:44
Subject: Re: Date/Time Types : internals
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-04-18 19:22:10
Subject: Re: separate Privileges section for SQL reference pages?

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