On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 2:20 AM, David Rowley
<david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Just to confirm, you mean this comment?
>
> int tm_year; /* relative to 1900 */
>
> Please let me know if you disagree, but I'm not sure it's the business of
> this patch to fix that. If it's wrong now, then it was wrong before my
> patch, so it should be a separate patch which fixes it.
>
> At this stage I don't quite know what the fix should be, weather it's doing
> tm->tm_year -= 1900; in timestamp2tm() after the j2date() call, or if it's
> just removing the misleading comment.
>
> I also don't quite understand why we bother having it relative to 1900 and
> not just base it on 0.
That's fair. I defer to the judgement of the committer here.
> Is there anything else you see that's pending before it can be marked as
> ready for committer?
Can't think of any reason not to. It's been marked "ready for committer".
Thanks
--
Peter Geoghegan
