Re: API bug in DetermineTimeZoneOffset()

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Przemyslaw Pastuszka <przemek(at)hadapt(dot)com>
Subject: Re: API bug in DetermineTimeZoneOffset()
Date: 2013-11-01 19:21:48
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYY-mZHSiE=cTjp0q6Wr_8zUVvtx2QzVPMtuX=6=3U+vw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I wrote:
>> The second attached patch, to be applied after the first, removes the
>> existing checks of HasCTZSet in the backend. The only visible effect of
>> this, AFAICT, is that to_char's TZ format spec now delivers something
>> useful instead of an empty string when a brute-force timezone is in use.
>> I could be persuaded either way as to whether to back-patch this part.
>> From one standpoint, this to_char behavioral change is clearly a bug fix
>> --- but it's barely possible that somebody out there thought that
>> returning an empty string for TZ was actually the intended/desirable
>> behavior.
>
> Any opinions about whether to back-patch this part or not? It seems
> like a bug fix, but on the other hand, I don't recall any complaints
> from the field about to_char's TZ spec not working with brute-force zones.
> So maybe the prudent thing is to leave well enough alone.

I vote for leaving it alone until somebody complains.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2013-11-01 19:28:54 Re: buffile.c resource owner breakage on segment extension
Previous Message Tom Lane 2013-11-01 19:08:28 Re: [BUGS] BUG #8573: int4range memory consumption