Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I guess adding 1 day to 1752-09-02 should give us 1752-09-14, but your
> right, it gives us 1752-09-03.
As was pointed out at length just recently, the transition from Julian
to Gregorian calendars happened at different times in different places.
So the above claim is only correct for some places.
The conclusion from the previous discussion was that our existing
behavior (extrapolate Gregorian rules backwards indefinitely) is as
defensible as anything else that would be likely to get coded.
I suppose you could imagine something that looks at the locale and
tries to guess the appropriate transition date ... but I don't foresee
anyone getting very excited about coding it.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
