Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: Is postgres ready for 2038? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Is postgres ready for 2038?
Date
Msg-id 985310.1605710686@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Is postgres ready for 2038?  (Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Is postgres ready for 2038?  (Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com>)
Re: Is postgres ready for 2038?  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com> writes:
>> Maybe we need to dig a little more to see what's going on here.

> How about just a mention in the future documentation to never ever define
> _USE_32BIT_TIME_T when compiling PG under Windows? Should be enough, I
> suppose.

Hmm.  Digging around, I see that Mkvcbuild.pm intentionally absorbs
_USE_32BIT_TIME_T when building with a Perl that defines that.
I don't know what the state of play is in terms of Windows Perl
distributions getting off of that, but maybe we should press people
to not be using such Perl builds.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bharath Rupireddy
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] postgres_fdw connection caching - cause remote sessions linger till the local session exit
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: proposal: possibility to read dumped table's name from file