Re: Macros for time magic values

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar mar 15 11:42:06 -0300 2011:
> > "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> > > Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > >> Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> writes:
> > >>> Would it help moving toward Leap Second support, and is this
> > >>> something we want to have?
> >
> > >> IMO we don't want to have that, as it would completely bollix
> > >> datetime calculations of all kinds. You couldn't even count on
> > >> stored timestamps not changing their meaning.
> >
> > > I'm inclined to agree, but if that's the choice, should we stop
> > > claiming that we're using UTC, and instead claim UT1 support? It
> > > always seemed a little odd to me that the docs say UTC but there's
> > > no actual support for leap seconds in calculations.
> >
> > Maybe, but if the docs started talking about that, we'd have to define
> > the term every time. The number of PG users who know what UT1 is can
> > probably be counted without running out of toes.
>
> A small note somewhere visible would suffice: "these docs talk about UTC
> but they really mean UT1 because we have no leap seconds support".

Done with the attached doc patch, backpatched to 9.1.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +