On 29 November 2015 at 14:00, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote:
> 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". > > Many thanks for reviewing this Peter. -- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
