Re: Year 2038 Bug?

From: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Year 2038 Bug?
Date: 2008-10-13 18:19:27
Message-ID: F8DF8536-008A-45F7-8E7F-A2BF7A18F4EB@kineticode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Oct 13, 2008, at 11:13, Tom Lane wrote:

> "David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
>> Probably no problem, then. Do dates in PostgreSQL work for their
>> entire documented ranges on 32bit processors?
>
> As long as the C compiler supports int64 ...

I was afraid you'd say that. See:

http://code.google.com/p/y2038/wiki/WhyBother

Especially the "64 bit CPU doesn't mean 2038 clean" section. Again,
maybe this doesn't apply to PostgreSQL; I'm just doing a bit of
diligence. :-)

Cheers,

David

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zdenek Kotala 2008-10-13 18:22:56 Re: Year 2038 Bug?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-10-13 18:13:39 Re: Year 2038 Bug?