I have seen other postings about Y2K compliance of postgres but no answers.  Can anyone tell me how
compliant Postgres is?
Thanks!
---------
Chris Williams
Sterling Software
Rome, New York
Phone: (315) 336-0500
Email: chris_d_williams@sterling.com


Mon, 19 Oct 1998 16:45:40 -0400
"Chris Williams" <chris_d_williams@itd.sterling.com>
Postgres - Y2K Compliant....Yes or No
> I have seen other postings about Y2K compliance of postgres but no 
> answers.  Can anyone tell me how compliant Postgres is?

Yes. It is, or should be, compliant. (btw, I wrote or integrated most of
the date/time routines.) The only place where you might possibly run
into trouble is if your underlying OS has Y2K trouble in the "get
current system time" routine.

Of course, ymmv. I've done some testing on this, and am familiar with
much of the code, but more testing or possibly docs on what testing
_has_ been done would be helpful. Anyone else have a start on this?

                   - Tom

Mon, 19 Oct 1998 22:31:58 +0000
"Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Re: [HACKERS] Postgres - Y2K Compliant....Yes or No
Thus spake Chris Williams
> I have seen other postings about Y2K compliance of postgres but no answers.  Can anyone tell me how
> compliant Postgres is?

darcy=> select 'NOW'::timestamp;
?column?              
----------------------
1998-10-19 17:45:27-04
(1 row)

Now 2038 compliance is another matter.  :-)

P.S.  I'm sure we'll have 8 byte times by then.

-- 
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@{druid|vex}.net>   |  Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/                |  and a sheep voting on
+1 416 424 2871     (DoD#0082)    (eNTP)   |  what's for dinner.

Mon, 19 Oct 1998 21:57:38 -0400 (EDT)
darcy@druid.net (D'Arcy J.M. Cain)
Re: [HACKERS] Postgres - Y2K Compliant....Yes or No

On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:

> Thus spake Chris Williams
> > I have seen other postings about Y2K compliance of postgres but no answers.  Can anyone tell me how
> > compliant Postgres is?
> 
> darcy=> select 'NOW'::timestamp;
> ?column?              
> ----------------------
> 1998-10-19 17:45:27-04
> (1 row)
> 
> Now 2038 compliance is another matter.  :-)
> 
> P.S.  I'm sure we'll have 8 byte times by then.

  2038 is for 31 bit (signed int) times, if we simply go to a unsigned int
that will extend things for another 68 years, and break very few things.
By 2106, I'm sure we'll have something better to do.

> -- 
> D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@{druid|vex}.net>   |  Democracy is three wolves
> http://www.druid.net/darcy/                |  and a sheep voting on
> +1 416 424 2871     (DoD#0082)    (eNTP)   |  what's for dinner.

Tom


Mon, 19 Oct 1998 20:22:16 -0700 (PDT)
Tom <tom@sdf.com>
Re: [HACKERS] Postgres - Y2K Compliant....Yes or No
>   2038 is for 31 bit (signed int) times, if we simply go to a unsigned 
> int that will extend things for another 68 years, and break very few 
> things. By 2106, I'm sure we'll have something better to do.

Hmm. I'm hoping that I'm still around in 2039 to be *really annoyed* if
I can't store my pre-1970 birthdate in Postgres ;)

                - Thomas

Tue, 20 Oct 1998 05:07:17 +0000
"Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Re: [HACKERS] Postgres - Y2K Compliant....Yes or No