Re: [HACKERS] Postgres - Y2K Compliant....Yes or No

From: "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Tom <tom(at)sdf(dot)com>
Cc: "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net>, chris_d_williams(at)itd(dot)sterling(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Postgres - Y2K Compliant....Yes or No
Date: 1998-10-20 05:07:17
Message-ID: 362C1A85.EFA8F6B1@alumni.caltech.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> 2038 is for 31 bit (signed int) times, if we simply go to a unsigned
> int that will extend things for another 68 years, and break very few
> things. By 2106, I'm sure we'll have something better to do.

Hmm. I'm hoping that I'm still around in 2039 to be *really annoyed* if
I can't store my pre-1970 birthdate in Postgres ;)

- Thomas

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Paul A Vixie 1998-10-20 06:21:37 Re: [HACKERS] Re: inet/cidr/bind
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1998-10-20 04:21:10 Re: [HACKERS] Re: inet/cidr/bind