| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 方徳輝 <javaeecoding(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Is postgres ready for 2038? |
| Date: | 2020-11-18 12:56:54 |
| Message-ID: | 004d74c6-0959-4b29-178a-5edfe56c4081@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/17/20 11:04 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B?5pa55b6z6Lyd?= <javaeecoding(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Is there any road map for 2038 problems in Postgres?
> Postgres has no problem with post-2038 dates as long as you are using a
> system with 64-bit time_t. In other words, the road map is "get off
> Windows, or press Microsoft to fix their problems".
>
>
But it does: "time_t is, by default, equivalent to __time64_t." See
<https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/c-runtime-library/reference/time-time32-time64?view=msvc-160>
Maybe we need to dig a little more to see what's going on here.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Borisov | 2020-11-18 13:32:57 | Re: Is postgres ready for 2038? |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2020-11-18 12:44:45 | Re: Devel docs on website reloading |