Re: BUG #15388: time convert error when use AT TIME ZONE '+8'
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #15388: time convert error when use AT TIME ZONE '+8' |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 19153.1537295270@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #15388: time convert error when use AT TIME ZONE '+8' ("Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-pgsql@hjp.at>) |
Список | pgsql-bugs |
"Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-pgsql@hjp.at> writes: > On 2018-09-17 23:45:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Another issue to keep in mind is that in POSIX time zone names, >> positive offsets are used for locations west of Greenwich. Everywhere >> else, PostgreSQL follows the ISO-8601 convention that positive timezone >> offsets are east of Greenwich. > I notice that '+8' doesn't match any of the documented formats. [ pokes around for awhile... ] You're right, but there's more there than meets the eye. Purely-numeric zone specifications tend to have different interpretations depending on context. Datetime input has one set of conventions, cf table 8.12 here: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/datatype-datetime.html#DATATYPE-DATETIME-INPUT while the timezone parameter has some other conventions documented on the SET reference page. Meanwhile, AT TIME ZONE doesn't do either of those things but goes straight for the symbolic case (cf timestamp_zone()). It's all kind of a mess. > It is obviously parsed as the last one, with STD as an empty strings, > but POSIX specifies that this must be "no less than three, nor more than > {TZNAME_MAX}, bytes", so an empty STD isn't allowed. Yeah. That was intentional, as localtime.c contains this comment: /* we allow empty STD abbrev, unlike IANA */ but I wonder whether it's such a hot idea. The other types of purely-numeric zone specifications seem to all follow the ISO sign convention, but this allows purely-numeric input that uses the POSIX sign convention. I wonder if we should revert this code to match the IANA upstream, so as to reduce confusion. But then AT TIME ZONE '+8' would fail, unless we stuck additional code in there. (Then again, failing might be better than silently changing sign convention.) In any case, it might be a good idea for section 8.5.3 to mention that it's not trying to cover numeric zone specifications. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: