At the risk of opening a can of worms, isn't it possible that a time could exceed 24 hours? Like, when there are leap seconds added?
> Some experiments inspired by an SO post[1] led me to question the meaning of time. Looks like the arrow mailing list is taking a philosophical turn :) Neal On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 3:05 PM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> wrote: > > Le 16/08/2021 à 20:52, Weston Pace a écrit : > > Some experiments inspired by an SO post[1] led me to question the > > meaning of time. The main question is **what happens when the value > > exceeds 24 hours?**. > > > > A) One potential interpretation is that these are invalid but neither > > the C++ implementation or pyarrow reject these today. Nor do they > > correct them. > > B) An alternative interpretation is to modulo by UTC days (e.g., if > > seconds, 86400) and use the resulting value. > > > > The (B) approach makes conversion from timestamp -> time trivial (just > > a metadata change). I think this is the correct, and preferred, > > interpretation. However, it would require all implementations to > > interpret time in this way. With that in mind, if we think this is > > the correct approach, I'd like to clean up the docs. > > (B) doesn't make sense at all to me. Really, (A) is the only reasonable > interpretation. > > We don't check data at IO boundaries by default, since that would be > expensive (for example, we don't check for valid UTF8). However, see > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-10924 for explicit temporal > data validation in C++. > > Regards > > Antoine. >
