Re: [HACKERS] postgres and year 2000 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
Subject Re: [HACKERS] postgres and year 2000
Date
Msg-id 86vhie2syl.fsf@athene.nhh.no
Whole thread Raw
In response to postgres and year 2000  (Massimo Dal Zotto <dz@cs.unitn.it>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] postgres and year 2000  (The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:

> We do need to handle two-digit years, [...]

Is it at all possible to get away with _not_ doing so?  It is, after
all, incredibly stupid to use two-digit years in anything but spoken
conversation, so in a way, I'd prefer computer systems to blankly
refuse them.  If they're allowed at all, I'd say parse them so that a
year specification of '99' means the actual year 99.  _Not_ 1999.

Then again, I also think computer systems should refuse to accept
non-ISO8601 date specifications, so I may be a bit too pedantic.  :-)

-tih
-- 
Popularity is the hallmark of mediocrity.  --Niles Crane, "Frasier"


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Thomas G. Lockhart"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] postgres and dates (year 2000? not!)
Next
From: The Hermit Hacker
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] postgres and year 2000