Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm starting to think that maybe we should throw error in these cases
>> instead of silently doing something that's got a 50-50 chance of being
>> wrong. I'm not sure if the "assume standard time" rule is standardized,
>>
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The current code behavior seems to me to be on par with, for example,
>> trying to intuit MM-DD versus DD-MM field orders. We used to try to
>> do that, too, and gave it up as a bad idea.
> I suppose it's topologically eq
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I'm starting to think that maybe we should throw error in these cases
>>> instead of silently doing something that's got a 50-50 chance of being
>>> wrong. I'm not sure
It's DST transition season again, and that means that we're getting the
usual quota of questions from people who don't quite understand how
DST-related timestamp arithmetic works, and whose incorrect code seems
to work until exercised during a transition interval. We've got this
one from a guy who
