Michael Meskes wrote: > On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 05:08:26PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Another point worth considering is that most of this is duplicated by > > ecpg's libpgtypes. Do we want to fix that one too, or do we just let it > > continue to be broken? I note that other bugs are already unfixed in > > ecpg's copy. One other idea to consider is moving these things to > > Meaning that a fix wasn't put there, too?
Yes, a fix was put there by Tom (which is why I retracted my comment initially). I did note that the ecpg code has diverged from the backend code; it's not unlikely that other bug fixes have not gone to the ecpg copy. But I didn't investigate each difference in detail. > > But in light of this bug and other already fixed date/time bugs, perhaps > > it's warranted? Opinions please. > > I'd love to go to a single source. Most of libpgtypes was taken from the > backend back when it was developed. I will keep that in mind, if I get back to moving the timestamp/datetime code to src/common. It's not a high priority item right now. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
