| From: | Ulrich Drepper <drepper(at)redhat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>, Trond Eivind Glomsrød <teg(at)redhat(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, Manuel Sugawara <masm(at)fciencias(dot)unam(dot)mx>, PostgreSQL Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Redhat 7.3 time manipulation bug |
| Date: | 2002-05-22 18:40:58 |
| Message-ID: | 1022092858.30693.173.camel@myware.mynet |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2002-05-22 at 11:23, Tom Lane wrote:
> Unix systems have
> *always* interpreted time_t as a signed offset from the epoch.
No. This always was an accident if it happens.
> Do you
> really think that when Unixen were first built in the early 70s, there
> was no interest in working with pre-1970 dates? Hardly likely.
There never were files or any system events with these dates. Yes.
And just to educate you and your likes: the majority of systems on this
planet use mktime this way. I hate using this as an argument, but
beside major Unixes M$ systems also do this.
> But you will end up reverting this change due to pushback
> from users. Want to make a side bet?
Sure. Especially not everybody is that stubborn.
--
---------------. ,-. 1325 Chesapeake Terrace
Ulrich Drepper \ ,-------------------' \ Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
Red Hat `--' drepper at redhat.com `------------------------
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lamar Owen | 2002-05-22 18:58:38 | Re: Redhat 7.3 time manipulation bug |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-05-22 18:23:54 | Re: Redhat 7.3 time manipulation bug |