Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar mar 15 11:42:06 -0300 2011: > "Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> writes: > > Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> writes: > >>> Would it help moving toward Leap Second support, and is this > >>> something we want to have? > > >> IMO we don't want to have that, as it would completely bollix > >> datetime calculations of all kinds. You couldn't even count on > >> stored timestamps not changing their meaning. > > > I'm inclined to agree, but if that's the choice, should we stop > > claiming that we're using UTC, and instead claim UT1 support? It > > always seemed a little odd to me that the docs say UTC but there's > > no actual support for leap seconds in calculations. > > Maybe, but if the docs started talking about that, we'd have to define > the term every time. The number of PG users who know what UT1 is can > probably be counted without running out of toes.
A small note somewhere visible would suffice: "these docs talk about UTC but they really mean UT1 because we have no leap seconds support". -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
