Re: Anyone using "POSIX" time zone offset capability?

From: James Cloos <cloos(at)jhcloos(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Brandon Aiken" <BAiken(at)winemantech(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Anyone using "POSIX" time zone offset capability?
Date: 2006-10-17 22:28:33
Message-ID: m3iriiy3tj.fsf@lugabout.jhcloos.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

Tom> The weird thing about this allegedly-POSIX notation is the combination
Tom> of a symbolic name and a further offset from it.

AIUI, it is not a further offset but rather (mostly-)redundant data
specifying the exact offset from UTC¹ the text tz specifies. Having
both provides easy parsing both for humans (the text) and for code
(the number).

-JimC

[1] Of course POSIX time is not really offset from UTC, since POSIX
pretends there have been no leap seconds since 1970. As such
the timestamps are technically ambiguous as to whether the specify
real UTC-based time or POSIX time.... (Currently there is a
23-second difference between the two.)

--
James Cloos <cloos(at)jhcloos(dot)com> OpenPGP: 0xED7DAEA6

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Staubo 2006-10-17 22:33:00 Re: not so sequential sequences
Previous Message Chris Browne 2006-10-17 22:26:10 Re: not so sequential sequences

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Anon Mous 2006-10-17 23:51:58 Re: Postgresql Caching
Previous Message Shane Ambler 2006-10-17 21:31:42 Re: Syntax bug? Group by?