Horton

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

Tom Samplonius <tom@sdf.com>

View thread
From: Tom <tom@sdf.com>
To: "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy@druid.net>
Cc: chris_d_williams@itd.sterling.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 1998-10-20T03:22:16Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
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