Re: [HACKERS] Re: y2k - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From darcy@druid.net (D'Arcy J.M. Cain)
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Re: y2k
Date
Msg-id m0zWR3e-0000emC@druid.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Re: y2k  (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Re: y2k
Re: [HACKERS] Re: y2k
List pgsql-hackers
Thus spake Bruce Momjian
> I have added a mention to the FAQ on the web site, saying the we are Y2K
> compliant.


Er, is that such a good idea?  I might stick my neck out if I am being paid
for it but I don't know that I would want lawyers arguing over exactly
what constitutes "Y2K compliant."  Sure, we are but that won't stop
ambulance ch^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlawyers from causing us grief.

-- 
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@{druid|vex}.net>   |  Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/                |  and a sheep voting on
+1 416 424 2871     (DoD#0082)    (eNTP)   |  what's for dinner.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
Date:
Subject: Bug? relpages, reltuples resets to zero
Next
From: Dragana Obradovic
Date:
Subject: ...