Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 05:08:26PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Another point worth considering is that most of this is duplicated by
> > ecpg's libpgtypes. Do we want to fix that one too, or do we just let it
> > continue to be broken? I note that other bugs are already unfixed in
> > ecpg's copy. One other idea to consider is moving these things to
>
> Meaning that a fix wasn't put there, too?
Yes, a fix was put there by Tom (which is why I retracted my comment
initially). I did note that the ecpg code has diverged from the backend
code; it's not unlikely that other bug fixes have not gone to the ecpg
copy. But I didn't investigate each difference in detail.
> > But in light of this bug and other already fixed date/time bugs, perhaps
> > it's warranted? Opinions please.
>
> I'd love to go to a single source. Most of libpgtypes was taken from the
> backend back when it was developed.
I will keep that in mind, if I get back to moving the timestamp/datetime
code to src/common. It's not a high priority item right now.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
