Re: Updating our timezone code in the back branches

Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> There are also several bug fixes that affect interpretation of dates after
>> 2037, a year that's getting closer all the time.

> Does this represent a data incompatibility for databases that could
> contain such dates already? That is, would this be changing the dates
> their database contains?

Hard to say. Those bugs might affect the way a stored timestamp would be
printed, but I don't really care to do the legwork that would be needed
to identify exactly what the consequences would be. In practice, I doubt
that the effects would be much different from a change in DST law that
might happen between now and 2037 --- anybody who's predicting now what
their local DST laws will be by then is pretty far out on a limb anyway :-(

regards, tom lane