"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr> writes:
>>> Would it help moving toward Leap Second support, and is this
>>> something we want to have?
>> IMO we don't want to have that, as it would completely bollix
>> datetime calculations of all kinds. You couldn't even count on
>> stored timestamps not changing their meaning.
> I'm inclined to agree, but if that's the choice, should we stop
> claiming that we're using UTC, and instead claim UT1 support? It
> always seemed a little odd to me that the docs say UTC but there's
> no actual support for leap seconds in calculations.
Maybe, but if the docs started talking about that, we'd have to define
the term every time. The number of PG users who know what UT1 is can
probably be counted without running out of toes.
regards, tom lane