On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 2:20 AM, David Rowley <david.row...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Just to confirm, you mean this comment? > > int tm_year; /* relative to 1900 */ > > Please let me know if you disagree, but I'm not sure it's the business of > this patch to fix that. If it's wrong now, then it was wrong before my > patch, so it should be a separate patch which fixes it. > > At this stage I don't quite know what the fix should be, weather it's doing > tm->tm_year -= 1900; in timestamp2tm() after the j2date() call, or if it's > just removing the misleading comment. > > I also don't quite understand why we bother having it relative to 1900 and > not just base it on 0.
That's fair. I defer to the judgement of the committer here. > Is there anything else you see that's pending before it can be marked as > ready for committer? Can't think of any reason not to. It's been marked "ready for committer". Thanks -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers