Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org> writes: > Aren't we *REQUIRED* by SQL99 to accept up to :61 to account for > leap seconds?
60, maybe --- I have not looked at the SQL spec. 61 is a widely repeated mistake; there never have been and never will be two leap seconds in the same minute (cf. NTP spec, RFC1305, esp. appendix E). But in reality, since we are using Unix-based timekeeping which does not cope with leap seconds, it is pointless to consider :60 as meaning a leap second. I think it's better to continue to regard it as an error. The only other thing we could do with it is treat 00:00:60 as meaning the same as 00:01:00, which is not really correct behavior.