Re: [HACKERS] postgres and year 2000

Marc Fournier <scrappy@hub.org>

From: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
To: Tom Ivar Helbekkmo <tih@nhh.no>
Cc: "Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>, PostgreSQL Hackers <hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Date: 1999-01-11T07:26:51Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 11 Jan 1999, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote:

> "Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> 
> > We do need to handle two-digit years, [...]
> 
> Is it at all possible to get away with _not_ doing so?  It is, after
> all, incredibly stupid to use two-digit years in anything but spoken
> conversation, so in a way, I'd prefer computer systems to blankly
> refuse them.  If they're allowed at all, I'd say parse them so that a
> year specification of '99' means the actual year 99.  _Not_ 1999.

Falling back to a Unix standard...type 'cal 99' and see which year you
get :)

I agree with Tom on this...if someone types a year of 99, we should
presume that whomever entered it knew what they were entering, and/or that
the programmer of the interface had enough sense to program checks into
it...


Marc G. Fournier                                
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org