> http://www.gnu.org/software/year2000.html
> > 1) at the time of writing, Thomas Lockhart, a member of the loose
> > confederation of the Postgres support team, is not aware of having
> > received any reports of any problems in the Postgres code base
> > related to time transitions around Jan 1, 2000.
> > 2) at the time of writing, in limited testing, which is documented
> > in the included regression tests, there have been no reports of
> > problems related to time transitions around Jan 1, 2000.
> Aren't 1 & 2 saying the same thing?
They probably are, but I didn't mean them to. I wanted (1) to refer to
my knowledge of the code base, and it's behavior on my machine. I wanted
(2) to refer to the results of the regression testing on a wider mix of
machines, with better docs on what was actually tested and with (a lack
of) reports of problems from other users.
It seemed reasonable to (try to) say what I knew for sure, and put my
name on it, rather than have the group make a statement. But I like the
Gnu statement, and we should refer to that.
Probably better to make a short statement and then refer to the Gnu site
for related info. I'll put it in the docs, after running it by the
hackers group again.
> > 3) any y2k problems in the underlying OS related to obtaining "the
> > current time" may propagate into apparent y2k problems in Postgres.
> This is basically what I read on most of the y2k statements...
> The only thing I'd mention/provide is a URL to the section of the
> User's Guide so that ppl dont' have to go searching for it...other
> than that, I'd say it sounds both accurate to what we know at this
> time, while not leaving any of us open to "but, hey, you said there
> wouldn't be any problems"...
>
> Might it not be wise to add in a comment dealing with the
> version(s) of PostgreSQL that this pertains to? Something like
> "referencing the currently released as well as development source
> trees"? The only concern would be someone popping up and mentioning
> 1.01, cause, well, they are still running that?
OK, all sounds good. We'll have something in the v6.4 docs.
- Tom