Re: [HACKERS] postgres and year 2000

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Massimo Dal Zotto <dz(at)cs(dot)unitn(dot)it>
Cc: hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org (PostgreSQL Hackers)
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] postgres and year 2000
Date: 1999-01-13 15:16:27
Message-ID: 18004.916240587@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Massimo Dal Zotto <dz(at)cs(dot)unitn(dot)it> writes:
> It is nice to provide smart date interpretation in the backend but in
> order to be really Y2K compliant we *MUST* forbid any ambiguous date
> format in the backend.

Why? Has some bureaucrat somewhere defined "Y2K-compliant" as meaning
"thou shalt stop accepting 2-digit years"? I have not heard of any
such definition and I am entirely prepared to ignore it if it exists...
it has nothing to do with reality.

regards, tom lane

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Brook Milligan 1999-01-13 15:20:15 Re: [HACKERS] RPM maintainer?
Previous Message Tom Lane 1999-01-13 15:12:01 Re: [HACKERS] SUM() and GROUP BY