Re: [HACKERS] Dates BC.

From: Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Dann Corbit <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>, Kurt Roeckx <Q(at)ping(dot)be>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Dates BC.
Date: 2004-03-30 07:19:15
Message-ID: 20040330071914.GA17619@zf.jcu.cz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 03:37:07PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Karel Zak wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 01:12:08AM -0800, Dann Corbit wrote:
> > > There is no zero calendar year. The first year of Anno Domini is 1. It's ordinal, not cardinal.
> >
> > I agree. But the follow quoted code is not use in date_part() there
> > Kurt found bug. It's used in to_timestamp() _only_, and it works,
> > because tm2timestamp() and date2j() work with zero year.
>
> I have also add a doc mention to my patch that mentions that there is no
> 0 AD, and therefore subtraction of BC years from AD years must be done
> with caution.

The patch seems good for me. Thanks.

Karel

--
Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>
http://home.zf.jcu.cz/~zakkr/

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gavin Sherry 2004-03-30 08:20:08 Re: pg_dump end comment
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2004-03-30 05:33:37 Re: pg_dump end comment

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gavin Sherry 2004-03-30 08:20:08 Re: pg_dump end comment
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2004-03-30 05:33:37 Re: pg_dump end comment