Gordon Runkle wrote: > On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 21:45, Joe Conway wrote: > >>That's due to a glibc change and is expected, if not desired. Complain >>to Red Hat. For more info, see previous threads on HACKERS, notably this >>one: >> >>http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2002-05/msg00740.php > > > Yeah, I remember that. The impression I had from the whole thing was > that, yeah, it's a glibc issue, but it still has to be fixed. > > I guess I misunderstood? >
Well a "real" fix sounded like a lot of work, and no one had the right combination of time/desire/knowledge/skill to go implement it. The "workaround" fix was discussed in this more recent thread: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2002-08/msg01233.php It still isn't clear to me exactly what needs to be done to implement the workaround, and since I don't really *need* dates before 1970 for my own purposes (presently at least), I haven't tried to figure it out in favor of other priorities. But I'm sure a fix would be enthusiastically greeted on the PATCHES list ;-) Joe ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly