On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 02:47:21PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 07:16:48PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I agree, that seems an entirely gratuitous choice of zone. It does
> >> seem like a good idea to test a zone that has a nonintegral offset
> >> from GMT, but we can get that from almost anywhere as long as we're
> >> testing a pre-1900 date. There's no need to use any zones that aren't
> >> long-established and unlikely to change.
>
> > If we want a nonintegral offset, why are we not using 'Asia/Calcutta',
> > which is +5:30 from UTC?
>
> I believe there's already one of those tests that considers a zone like
> that. No, I meant a really odd offset, like Paris' +0:09:21 before they
> adopted standardized time.
Wow, OK, got it.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +