On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 02:47:21PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 07:16:48PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I agree, that seems an entirely gratuitous choice of zone. It does > >> seem like a good idea to test a zone that has a nonintegral offset > >> from GMT, but we can get that from almost anywhere as long as we're > >> testing a pre-1900 date. There's no need to use any zones that aren't > >> long-established and unlikely to change. > > > If we want a nonintegral offset, why are we not using 'Asia/Calcutta', > > which is +5:30 from UTC? > > I believe there's already one of those tests that considers a zone like > that. No, I meant a really odd offset, like Paris' +0:09:21 before they > adopted standardized time.
Wow, OK, got it. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
