| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Erik Wienhold <ewie(at)ewie(dot)name> |
| Cc: | Steve Rogerson <steve(dot)git(at)woodsideendurance(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-general list <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Possible old and fixed bug in Postgres? |
| Date: | 2023-04-05 14:16:56 |
| Message-ID: | 1833663.1680704216@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Erik Wienhold <ewie(at)ewie(dot)name> writes:
>> On 05/04/2023 11:18 CEST Steve Rogerson <steve(dot)git(at)woodsideendurance(dot)co(dot)uk> wrote:
>> # For very early and late dates, PostgreSQL always returns times in
>> # UTC and does not tell us that it did so.
>> Early is before 1901-12-14 and late after 2038-01-18
>> ...
>> These seemed correct to me. I'm guessing this might have been a bug/feature of
>> pg in the long ago.
> Judging by the commit message and changed test cases, probably:
I think this was not fixed in full until 2008:
Either way, though, whatever Steve is looking at is far past its
sell-by date.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-04-05 14:24:45 | Re: PgOutput Replication Message Format - Differentiate between explicit NULL and Omitted Columns during Insert |
| Previous Message | Erik Wienhold | 2023-04-05 10:23:18 | Re: Possible old and fixed bug in Postgres? |