"Rainer Mager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Apparently at ever older date (around
>> 10,000 BC I
>> believe) the seconds are dropped.
You do realize that timestamps are floating point seconds relative to AD
2000, and so the accuracy decreases as you get further away from current
time?
>> The o
I posted this about 2 weeks ago and saw no further follow ups. Is this
timestamp thing not considered a bug? Or am I just doing something wrong?
Thanks,
--Rainer
> -Original Message-
> Sorry to reopen this issue but I still think there is a bug
> somewhere,
> perhaps in the JDBC dr
Hi all,
Sorry to reopen this issue but I still think there is a bug somewhere,
perhaps in the JDBC driver. The code and the end of this message
demonstrates the bug. Basically I write a timestamp to the database and then
read it back and what I write and what I get back are different. I d
Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not sure how to test for "correctness" of time zone support in a way
> that gives better results than this assumption. We do know that some
> timezone databases are incorrect before 1970, for example (AIX), and
> that there are variations in conten
> Ok, I now understand more about how Postgres handles these older dates but...
It isn't quite as nice and clean as we'd like. For example, the cutoff
dates for assuming that time zone is correctly supported are arbitrarily
chosen to be near the Unix system time range boundaries of 1901 and
2038,
