Thread

1. Postgres - Y2K Compliant....Yes or No

   Chris Williams <chris_d_williams@itd.sterling.com> — 1998-10-19T20:45:40Z

   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
   
   
   

2. Re: [HACKERS] Postgres - Y2K Compliant....Yes or No

   Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> — 1998-10-19T22:31:58Z

   > 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
   
   

3. Re: [HACKERS] Postgres - Y2K Compliant....Yes or No

   D'Arcy Cain <darcy@druid.net> — 1998-10-20T01:57:38Z

   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.
   
   

4. Re: [HACKERS] Postgres - Y2K Compliant....Yes or No

   Tom Samplonius <tom@sdf.com> — 1998-10-20T03:22:16Z

   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
   
   
   

5. Re: [HACKERS] Postgres - Y2K Compliant....Yes or No

   Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> — 1998-10-20T05:07:17Z

   >   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