Re: BUG #11883: Year 1500 not treated as leap year when it was a leap year - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: BUG #11883: Year 1500 not treated as leap year when it was a leap year
Date
Msg-id 20141107070257.GA29045@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: BUG #11883: Year 1500 not treated as leap year when it was a leap year  (Bruce Hunsaker <hunsakerbn@ldschurch.org>)
Responses Re: BUG #11883: Year 1500 not treated as leap year when it was a leap year  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: BUG #11883: Year 1500 not treated as leap year when it was a leap year  (Bruce Hunsaker <hunsakerbn@ldschurch.org>)
List pgsql-bugs
On Thu, Nov  6, 2014 at 07:29:49AM -0700, Bruce Hunsaker wrote:
> > I have applied the attached C comment to document why we use the
> > Gregorian calendar for pre-1582 years.
>
> Thanks everyone for the response. I guess the bottom line for us
> is that if we want to store dates before 1582, we may not want
> to use date or timestamp columns for that data, particularly if
> the dates are from a Julian calendar.

Yeah, the big problem is that there is no way to store leap days for
years like 1500.  The only good part is that the Gregorian calendar is
very good at keeping the calendar aligned with the seasons.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + Everyone has their own god. +

pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Invalid page in block on autovacuum
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ltree::text not immutable?