Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> writes: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> There are also several bug fixes that affect interpretation of dates after >> 2037, a year that's getting closer all the time.
> Does this represent a data incompatibility for databases that could > contain such dates already? That is, would this be changing the dates > their database contains? Hard to say. Those bugs might affect the way a stored timestamp would be printed, but I don't really care to do the legwork that would be needed to identify exactly what the consequences would be. In practice, I doubt that the effects would be much different from a change in DST law that might happen between now and 2037 --- anybody who's predicting now what their local DST laws will be by then is pretty far out on a limb anyway :-( regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers