Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> There are also several bug fixes that affect interpretation of dates after
>> 2037, a year that's getting closer all the time.
> Does this represent a data incompatibility for databases that could
> contain such dates already? That is, would this be changing the dates
> their database contains?
Hard to say. Those bugs might affect the way a stored timestamp would be
printed, but I don't really care to do the legwork that would be needed
to identify exactly what the consequences would be. In practice, I doubt
that the effects would be much different from a change in DST law that
might happen between now and 2037 --- anybody who's predicting now what
their local DST laws will be by then is pretty far out on a limb anyway :-(
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
