Re: [HACKERS] postgres and year 2000
| От | Tom Ivar Helbekkmo |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] postgres and year 2000 |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 86vhie2syl.fsf@athene.nhh.no обсуждение |
| Ответ на | postgres and year 2000 (Massimo Dal Zotto <dz@cs.unitn.it>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] postgres and year 2000
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
"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. Then again, I also think computer systems should refuse to accept non-ISO8601 date specifications, so I may be a bit too pedantic. :-) -tih -- Popularity is the hallmark of mediocrity. --Niles Crane, "Frasier"
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: