Re: y2k

> I am sorry to bother you with another compliance question (I am sure
> you get many), but could you direct
> me to were I can obtain a Y2K compliance statement regarding 
> Postgres95 v6.3.2 for a Sparc/Solaris platform?
> I need to provide this document to my systems administration team 
> before I can install the dbms. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Hmm. I know what I _think_ about y2k on Postgres (no problem), but I'm
not sure what your admin team is looking for here (besides an excuse to
avoid work -- *slap* ooh, that wasn't nice was it?).

I'm not a big fan of holding open-source software to a legally binding
statement which could confer liability ("jeesh, you have the source
dudes, fix it yourself! And contribute back the solution!" :)

Anyway, if you have an example of what they are looking for, I'd be
happy to look at it and write something up. I can imagine something
which says:

1) at the time of writing, Thomas Lockhart, a member of the loose
confederation of the Postgres support team, is not aware of having
received any reports of any problems in the Postgres code base related
to time transitions around Jan 1, 2000.

2) at the time of writing, in limited testing, which is documented in
the included regression tests, there have been no reports of problems
related to time transitions around Jan 1, 2000.

3) at the time of writing, to the best of Thomas' knowledge, the
assumptions Postgres makes about dates specified with a two-digit year
are documented in the current User's Guide. (the significant transition
year is 1970, not 2000.)

3) any y2k problems in the underlying OS related to obtaining "the
current time" may propagate into apparent y2k problems in Postgres.

*aside* I feel so dirty ;)

What do the rest of the developers think about this?
                  - Tom