| From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | timestamp (mis)behaviors |
| Date: | 2001-01-22 11:37:16 |
| Message-ID: | 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA6879633681CC@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Imho the behavior of timestamp code is somewhat awkward
for dates that do not fit into a time_t (>2038 or < 1901).
Times in the time_t range are displayed in local time including DST.
Times outside that range are displayed in UTC. I would have expected
UTC plus local offset not taking DST into account.
When setting datestyle to ISO I get a timezone offset, even when SQL99
says timezone is only available if the column was defined as
"timestamp with timezone". Dealing with the stupid mktime issue
I think the standard intended to not involve any issues with
timezones or DST for the timestamp datatype.
The timestamp implementation is not SQL99 conformant.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Schrem | 2001-01-22 11:47:46 | Strange initdb error with kernel 2.4: unknown type 'ame'. |
| Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB | 2001-01-22 11:31:10 | AW: FW: Postgresql on win32 |