Gordon Runkle wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 21:45, Joe Conway wrote:
>
>>That's due to a glibc change and is expected, if not desired. Complain
>>to Red Hat. For more info, see previous threads on HACKERS, notably this
>>one:
>>
>>http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2002-05/msg00740.php
>
>
> Yeah, I remember that. The impression I had from the whole thing was
> that, yeah, it's a glibc issue, but it still has to be fixed.
>
> I guess I misunderstood?
>
Well a "real" fix sounded like a lot of work, and no one had the right
combination of time/desire/knowledge/skill to go implement it. The
"workaround" fix was discussed in this more recent thread:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2002-08/msg01233.php
It still isn't clear to me exactly what needs to be done to implement
the workaround, and since I don't really *need* dates before 1970 for my
own purposes (presently at least), I haven't tried to figure it out in
favor of other priorities.
But I'm sure a fix would be enthusiastically greeted on the PATCHES list ;-)
Joe
