From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Win32 timezone matching |
Date: | 2010-04-15 08:07:05 |
Message-ID: | u2i9837222c1004150107mf994a67dk8d1fd31739602c86@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> [ back to this... ]
>
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 21:06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> I suppose we had a reason for doing it the first way but I can't see
>>> what. "GMT" seems a fairly English-centric way of referring to UTC
>>> anyhow; translators might wish to put in "UTC" instead, or some other
>>> spelling. Shouldn't we let them?
>
>> UTC and GMT aren't actually the same thing.
>
> Tell it to the zic people --- they are identical except for the zone
> abbreviation itself, according to the zic database. There might be some
> pedantic argument for preferring the name "UTC", but I'm hesitant to
> change that behavior just to satisfy pedants.
Agreed, I don't think it's worth changing. However, that also goes to
the translation of it - let's keep *one* term, that'll make it a lot
less confusing.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-04-15 08:12:15 | Re: Win32 timezone matching |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-04-15 07:52:13 | Re: walreceiver is uninterruptible on win32 |