On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 04:51:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 06:10:12PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> However, as pointed out by Patric, if you dump and restore an old
> >> timestamptz value in one of these zones, it will fail to restore because
> >>
Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 06:10:12PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> However, as pointed out by Patric, if you dump and restore an old
>> timestamptz value in one of these zones, it will fail to restore because
>> of the sanity check. I think therefore that we'd better enlarge the
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 06:10:12PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Currently, our datetime input code thinks that any UTC offset of more
> than 14:59:59 either way from Greenwich must be a mistake. However,
> after seeing Patric Bechtel's recent bug report, I went trolling in the
> Olson timezone files t
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
> On May 30, 2012, at 3:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> However, as pointed out by Patric, if you dump and restore an old
>> timestamptz value in one of these zones, it will fail to restore because
>> of the sanity check. I think therefore that we'd better enlarge the
>> allo
On May 30, 2012, at 3:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> However, as pointed out by Patric, if you dump and restore an old
> timestamptz value in one of these zones, it will fail to restore because
> of the sanity check. I think therefore that we'd better enlarge the
> allowed range to 15:59:59 either way.
