Re: invalid input syntax for type timestamp.

On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 12:52:12PM -0500, Brian Hurt wrote:
> Joachim Wieland wrote:

> >Yes, I completely agree that JDT should not be included. I just wanted to
> >understand how those lines show that JST is still in active use. As far as
> >I
> >understand it, it says that JST was observed from 1948 to 1951 (the second
> >rule) and now there is a time zone "J%sT" (because there is no "until"-date
> >in the last line) but there is no rule that tells us what to replace "%s"
> >with...

> We're using JST as a time zone here, so I'd like to politely request
> that JST stay in the list of time zones, wether it is an "official" time
> zone or not. Thanks.

No objection Brian, everybody agrees to put it back into the list of time
zones. I'm just trying to find out why it isn't there already. I think that
the missing rule (better: the rule that i think is missing) might be the
reason for why the conversion script that I used at that time did not output
it as a timezone that is still active.

Joachim