Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 23:44, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I'm not clear on this. �Would this patch fix a real seen-in-the-field
>> condition, or is it speculative? �In particular, if the loop had kept
>> going in the complainant's machine, would it have found another entry
>> that worked better?
> Real, seen-in-the-field. It would proceed and eventually find the guys
> Berlin timezone (Central European, which comes after Central Brazilian
> which is the one that was missing the entries).
Ah, of course. People who actually wanted the Central Brazilian zone
are screwed, but they're screwed anyway, and there's no need to also
screw people who want a zone that happens to come later in the list.
+1 for the patch then.
> It does, however, turn out that the issue was fixed when he re-applied
> the latest timezone update hotfix from microsoft, which appears to
> rewrite that entire subkey. Not sure how well we can trust that though
> - it's not like we're working off a documented key...
In any case, we might as well make things smoother for people working
with unpatched systems, if it's such a small change.
regards, tom lane