Re: Handling Time

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: aarni(at)kymi(dot)com
Cc: operationsengineer1(at)yahoo(dot)com, pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Handling Time
Date: 2005-04-01 15:11:29
Message-ID: 6462.1112368289@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-novice

Aarni =?iso-8859-1?q?Ruuhim=E4ki?= <aarni(at)kymi(dot)com> writes:
> So, the answer is that TIMESTAMP WITH TIMEZONE is good through 2037, and
> TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE is good through 10,000AD?

That was a reasonable answer at the time of the message you quote, but
PG 8.0 no longer relies on the OS for timezone support. So now, to
repeat the example:

regression=# select '1999-09-27'::timestamp with time zone;
timestamptz
------------------------
1999-09-27 00:00:00-04
(1 row)

regression=# select '2999-09-27'::timestamp with time zone;
timestamptz
------------------------
2999-09-27 00:00:00-05
(1 row)

or for that matter

regression=# select '0099-09-27 BC'::timestamp with time zone;
timestamptz
---------------------------
0099-09-27 00:00:00-05 BC
(1 row)

The points I made before about the dubiousness of this calculation are
as valid as ever, but it's no longer a matter of not being able to do
it, it's just a matter of how much space you want to expend in the
timezone data files. (The first and last dates shown above are outside
the range of the Americas/New_York timezone file that we supply, so PG
falls back to assuming local standard time.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-novice by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-04-01 15:37:29 Re: VACUUM and other maintenance work
Previous Message Christian Hofmann 2005-04-01 13:03:43 VACUUM and other maintenance work