Re: Year 2038 Bug? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David E. Wheeler
Subject Re: Year 2038 Bug?
Date
Msg-id F8DF8536-008A-45F7-8E7F-A2BF7A18F4EB@kineticode.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Year 2038 Bug?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Year 2038 Bug?
Re: Year 2038 Bug?
List pgsql-hackers
On Oct 13, 2008, at 11:13, Tom Lane wrote:

> "David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com> writes:
>> Probably no problem, then. Do dates in PostgreSQL work for their
>> entire documented ranges on 32bit processors?
>
> As long as the C compiler supports int64 ...

I was afraid you'd say that. See:
  http://code.google.com/p/y2038/wiki/WhyBother

Especially the "64 bit CPU doesn't mean 2038 clean" section. Again,  
maybe this doesn't apply to PostgreSQL; I'm just doing a bit of  
diligence. :-)

Cheers,

David


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Year 2038 Bug?
Next
From: Zdenek Kotala
Date:
Subject: Re: Year 2038 Bug?