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

From The Hermit Hacker
Subject Re: [HACKERS] postgres and year 2000
Date
Msg-id Pine.BSF.4.05.9901110325280.10663-100000@thelab.hub.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] postgres and year 2000  (Tom Ivar Helbekkmo <tih@nhh.no>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 11 Jan 1999, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote:

> "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.

Falling back to a Unix standard...type 'cal 99' and see which year you
get :)

I agree with Tom on this...if someone types a year of 99, we should
presume that whomever entered it knew what they were entering, and/or that
the programmer of the interface had enough sense to program checks into
it...


Marc G. Fournier                                
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] postgres and year 2000
Next
From: Zeugswetter Andreas IZ5
Date:
Subject: WG: [HACKERS] MVCC works in serialized mode!