Re: Redhat/glibc and postgre time "bug"

Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Monday 08 July 2002 02:08 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Rasmus Resen Amossen wrote:
> > > There has been quite a few mails on the misoperation in date values
> > > before the epoc on RH7.3 and pgsql7.2.1 (something with glibc).
>
> > No, no fix yet. We had hoped that since May glibc folks would have
> > addressed it, but it seems not. We are left working around it
> > ourselves.
>
> The glibc people do not consider this a bug in mktime(3), as they are
> following the patently broken 'standard'. Red Hat 7.3 included portions of a
> prerelease glibc -- patched in to place, and not the official glibc that
> could be downloaded.
>
> Red Hat also does not consider mktime(3) to now be broken.

That is their opinion, of course.

> Having said that, a patch for this exists in the current Rawhide. I am loath
> to include such in an 'official' RPMset for many reasons.

OK, what does that mean? That there is a fix coming in a future
release? I don't know what Rawhide is.

> Can configure simply test for a 'standard' mktime(3) (standard = broken) for
> ANY target, and set options accordingly? This would simplify things -- there
> are a few other systems with this behavior.

Yes, we can test for it in configure. Do you want the
place-our-own-mktime-first-in-the-link-path option to be enabled in such
cases? If so, I need a copy of a fixed mktime for replacement. I also
need confirmation that it is LGPL and that it is legally safe for us to
included it in our tree, though ODBC is already LGPL but is not linked
into the backend. And finally, do we generate a 7.2.2 to fix this,
distribute a patch, or wait for 7.3?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026