On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > [ back to this... ] > > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: >> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 21:06, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> I suppose we had a reason for doing it the first way but I can't see >>> what. "GMT" seems a fairly English-centric way of referring to UTC >>> anyhow; translators might wish to put in "UTC" instead, or some other >>> spelling. Shouldn't we let them? > >> UTC and GMT aren't actually the same thing. > > Tell it to the zic people --- they are identical except for the zone > abbreviation itself, according to the zic database. There might be some > pedantic argument for preferring the name "UTC", but I'm hesitant to > change that behavior just to satisfy pedants.
Agreed, I don't think it's worth changing. However, that also goes to the translation of it - let's keep *one* term, that'll make it a lot less confusing. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
