
> Pete Forman <pete.forman@westerngeco.com> writes:
> > Thinking about that a bit more, I think that tm_isdst should not be
> > written into.
> 
> IIRC, setting isdst to -1 was necessary to get the right 
> behavior across
> DST boundaries on more-mainstream systems.  I do not think it's
> acceptable to do worse on systems with good time libraries in order to
> improve behavior on fundamentally broken ones.

Yes, the annoyance is, that localtime works for dates before 1970
but mktime doesn't. Best would probably be to assume no DST before
1970 on AIX and IRIX.

Andreas

Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:51:51 +0100
Zeugswetter Andreas SB  <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at>
AW: AW: Re: tinterval - operator problems on AIX 
Zeugswetter Andreas SB  <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at> writes:
> Yes, the annoyance is, that localtime works for dates before 1970
> but mktime doesn't. Best would probably be to assume no DST before
> 1970 on AIX and IRIX.

That seems like a reasonable answer to me, especially since we have
other platforms that behave that way.  How can we do this --- just
test for isdst = -1 after the call, and assume that means failure?

			regards, tom lane

Fri, 12 Jan 2001 10:55:48 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: AW: AW: Re: tinterval - operator problems on AIX 