On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:34:45AM -0400, Adam Brightwell wrote: > > > > Good point. Next patch attached. > > > /* > - * Note: we'll reject zero or negative year values. Perhaps negatives > - * should be allowed to represent BC years? > + * Note: Non-positive years are taken to be BCE. > */ > > Previously, zero was rejected, what does it do now? I'm sure it represents > 0 AD/CE, however, is that important enough to note given that it was not > allowed previously?
Now, it's supposed to take 0 as 1 BCE, -1 as 2 BCE, etc. There should probably be tests for that. The issue here is that zero was popularized a very long time after the beginning of the Common Era. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
