Mailing List Archive

postgres create table script creates incorrect physmessage table
Hallo everyone,

While doing testing on dbmail 2.0rc2 with Micro$oft Outlook using IMAP to grab mail from dbmail, I found an interesting problem.

I'm using postgresql 7.2 for the db backend and the sql/postgres/create_tables.pgsql script specifies the following for the physmessage table:

CREATE SEQUENCE physmessage_id_seq;
CREATE TABLE physmessage (
id INT8 DEFAULT nextval('physmessage_id_seq'),
messagesize INT8 DEFAULT '0' NOT NULL,
rfcsize INT8 DEFAULT '0' NOT NULL,
internal_date TIMESTAMP,
PRIMARY KEY(id)
);

The problem is that specifying TIMESTAMP to PostgreSQL 7.1 and above will make PostgreSQL default to what they call 'timestamp with time zone' which looks like 2004-02-24 14:58:42.167476-05 and is internally known as timestamptz. This causes Outlook (didn't see this behavior on KMail with IMAP though), to show the Received Date as 11/03/1979 12:00AM which of course isn't correct. Upon Outlook's first display of a new message, it shows the correct Received date but then something updates (or you click on the message) and the date gets transformed to 11/03/1979 12:00AM and thereafter stays that way within Outlook.

There wouldn't be any problem if it were not for the date_sql2imap function expecting to see a mysql format date, as specified in imaputil.c:

-- excerpt from imaputil.c --
/*
* convert a mySQL date (yyyy-mm-dd hh:mm:ss) to a valid IMAP internal date:
* 0123456789012345678
* dd-mon-yyyy hh:mm:ss with mon characters (i.e. 'Apr' for april)
* 01234567890123456789
* return value is valid until next function call.
* NOTE: sqldate is not tested for validity. Behaviour is undefined for non-sql
* dates.
*/
char *date_sql2imap(const char *sqldate)
{
int mon;

if (strlen(sqldate) != strlen("yyyy-mm-dd hh:mm:ss"))
{
strcpy(_imapdate, "03-Nov-1979 00:00:00");
return _imapdate;
}
-- end excerpt from imaputil.c --

date_sql2imap specifically returns the 03-Nov-1979 00:00:00 date/time when the sql date returned by the db backend is longer than the default date format it expects to convert.

I don't know if the code should be changed to handle the timezone or not, but I do know that I was able to fix this behavior and have not seen any problems with the following specification for the physmessage table:

CREATE SEQUENCE physmessage_id_seq;
CREATE TABLE physmessage (
id INT8 DEFAULT nextval('physmessage_id_seq'),
messagesize INT8 DEFAULT '0' NOT NULL,
rfcsize INT8 DEFAULT '0' NOT NULL,
internal_date TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE,
PRIMARY KEY(id)
);

So that's about it for that... any ideas as to what should be done?

Blessings in Jesus,
Paul F. De La Cruz
Re: postgres create table script creates incorrect physmessage table [ In reply to ]
"Paul F. De La Cruz" <polito@blackbeanie.net> said:
[huge snip of almost everything]

> internal_date TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE,

As long as this doesn't cause pre-7.1 version of PostgreSQL to choke, the
change should definitely be made before 2.0rc3!

Also, what about adding more sanity/format checking to the various scripts and
date access functions? I bet that it wouldn't be too hard to code something up
that handled a mangled date better. Perhaps something as simple as a forced
date format conversion in the SELECT statement, allowing almost any underlying
format to be used by the database...

Aaron


> So that's about it for that... any ideas as to what should be done?
>
> Blessings in Jesus,
> Paul F. De La Cruz

--
Re: postgres create table script creates incorrect physmessage table [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 09:16:59PM -0000, Aaron Stone wrote:
> "Paul F. De La Cruz" <polito@blackbeanie.net> said:
> [huge snip of almost everything]
>
> > internal_date TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE,
>
> As long as this doesn't cause pre-7.1 version of PostgreSQL to choke, the
> change should definitely be made before 2.0rc3!

I think it would make the pre-7.1 versions of PostgreSQL choke as they either only have timestamp (without the additional 'with/without time zone' or use some other strange format. I'm thinking that this may be a problem that's been around for awhile and just wasn't noticed since PostgreSQL seems to give dates different from what date_sql2imap is looking for. I'm no PostgreSQL expert though so if someone knows otherwise concerning older PG versions, then by all means speak up.

> Also, what about adding more sanity/format checking to the various scripts and
> date access functions? I bet that it wouldn't be too hard to code something up
> that handled a mangled date better. Perhaps something as simple as a forced
> date format conversion in the SELECT statement, allowing almost any underlying
> format to be used by the database...

Hmm... I wonder if it'd be best to have the database return the date in an intermediary format (epoch timestamp?) and then convert from that since we'd could (hopefully) trust it to be the same no matter what database was used?

Blessings in Jesus,
Paul F. De La Cruz
Re: postgres create table script creates incorrect physmessage table [ In reply to ]
Paul F. De La Cruz wrote:

>On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 09:16:59PM -0000, Aaron Stone wrote:
>
>
>>As long as this doesn't cause pre-7.1 version of PostgreSQL to choke, the
>>change should definitely be made before 2.0rc3!
>>
>>
>
>I think it would make the pre-7.1 versions of PostgreSQL choke as they either only have timestamp (without the additional 'with/without time zone' or use some other strange format. I'm thinking that this may be a problem that's been around for awhile and just wasn't noticed since PostgreSQL seems to give dates different from what date_sql2imap is looking for. I'm no PostgreSQL expert though so if someone knows otherwise concerning older PG versions, then by all means speak up.
>
>

I don't see a big problem dropping support for pre-7.1. 7.0.x is very
old. Anyone who is actually interested in running dbmail would want a
newer postgresql. Also, the number of users still on postgresql that
old is very small, see this little survey from the postgresql website:

http://www.postgresql.org/survey.php?View=1&SurveyID=14

I'm not exactly sure what date that survey was taken, but based on the
7.4 DEV that is listed I would assume it is at least before 7.4 was
released which was back in November.
Re: postgres create table script creates incorrect physmessage table [ In reply to ]
Using explicit ANSI SQL functions should give us better portability to
whatever default format the database wants to use. I think it's quite bad form
that we're currently assuming that the database will store and return the
format that we want simply because we remembered to use the right column type.

SELECT to_char(datecolumn, 'YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS') FROM whatevertable;

UPDATE whatevertable SET datecolumn = to_date('1999-02-01
00:00:00','YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS');

In MySQL, to_date and to_char do not exist. date_format is used instead. At
the moment, we implement lots of queries (all of them, perhaps) in the
midlevel and so it would probably be a pain to push the date stuff down into
the database specific lowlevel. So as an alternative, we could use MySQL
specific date functions in the midlevel and then use a series of stored
functions to emulate the MySQL stuff in PostgreSQL and elsewhere. See here:

http://www.xach.com/aolserver/mysql-functions.sql

Aaron


""Matthew T. O'Connor"" <matthew@zeut.net> said:

> Paul F. De La Cruz wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 09:16:59PM -0000, Aaron Stone wrote:
> >
> >
> >>As long as this doesn't cause pre-7.1 version of PostgreSQL to choke, the
> >>change should definitely be made before 2.0rc3!
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I think it would make the pre-7.1 versions of PostgreSQL choke as they
either only have timestamp (without the additional 'with/without time zone' or
use some other strange format. I'm thinking that this may be a problem that's
been around for awhile and just wasn't noticed since PostgreSQL seems to give
dates different from what date_sql2imap is looking for. I'm no PostgreSQL
expert though so if someone knows otherwise concerning older PG versions, then
by all means speak up.
> >
> >
>
> I don't see a big problem dropping support for pre-7.1. 7.0.x is very
> old. Anyone who is actually interested in running dbmail would want a
> newer postgresql. Also, the number of users still on postgresql that
> old is very small, see this little survey from the postgresql website:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/survey.php?View=1&SurveyID=14
>
> I'm not exactly sure what date that survey was taken, but based on the
> 7.4 DEV that is listed I would assume it is at least before 7.4 was
> released which was back in November.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dbmail-dev mailing list
> Dbmail-dev@dbmail.org
> http://twister.fastxs.net/mailman/listinfo/dbmail-dev
>



--
Re: postgres create table script creates incorrect physmessage table [ In reply to ]
Hi,

I agree that we should use some kind of scheme to get a fixed format
from the database. I wonder why to_char() and to_date() are not in
MySQL. They are part of SQL92, aren't they?

Is it possible to include the database functions, from the URL Aaron
provided, in an installation script? If so, we could use this.

Ilja

Aaron Stone wrote:

> Using explicit ANSI SQL functions should give us better portability to
> whatever default format the database wants to use. I think it's quite bad form
> that we're currently assuming that the database will store and return the
> format that we want simply because we remembered to use the right column type.
>
> SELECT to_char(datecolumn, 'YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS') FROM whatevertable;
>
> UPDATE whatevertable SET datecolumn = to_date('1999-02-01
> 00:00:00','YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS');
>
> In MySQL, to_date and to_char do not exist. date_format is used instead. At
> the moment, we implement lots of queries (all of them, perhaps) in the
> midlevel and so it would probably be a pain to push the date stuff down into
> the database specific lowlevel. So as an alternative, we could use MySQL
> specific date functions in the midlevel and then use a series of stored
> functions to emulate the MySQL stuff in PostgreSQL and elsewhere. See here:
>
> http://www.xach.com/aolserver/mysql-functions.sql
>
> Aaron
>
>
> ""Matthew T. O'Connor"" <matthew@zeut.net> said:
>
>
>>Paul F. De La Cruz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 09:16:59PM -0000, Aaron Stone wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>As long as this doesn't cause pre-7.1 version of PostgreSQL to choke, the
>>>>change should definitely be made before 2.0rc3!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>I think it would make the pre-7.1 versions of PostgreSQL choke as they
>
> either only have timestamp (without the additional 'with/without time zone' or
> use some other strange format. I'm thinking that this may be a problem that's
> been around for awhile and just wasn't noticed since PostgreSQL seems to give
> dates different from what date_sql2imap is looking for. I'm no PostgreSQL
> expert though so if someone knows otherwise concerning older PG versions, then
> by all means speak up.
>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I don't see a big problem dropping support for pre-7.1. 7.0.x is very
>>old. Anyone who is actually interested in running dbmail would want a
>>newer postgresql. Also, the number of users still on postgresql that
>>old is very small, see this little survey from the postgresql website:
>>
>>http://www.postgresql.org/survey.php?View=1&SurveyID=14
>>
>>I'm not exactly sure what date that survey was taken, but based on the
>>7.4 DEV that is listed I would assume it is at least before 7.4 was
>>released which was back in November.
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Dbmail-dev mailing list
>>Dbmail-dev@dbmail.org
>>http://twister.fastxs.net/mailman/listinfo/dbmail-dev
>>
>
>
>
>
Re: postgres create table script creates incorrect physmessage table [ In reply to ]
Hi,

I was thinking of the best way to solve this problem.

Clearly, in the end, we should not be dependent on the format in which
the database stores the DATE-format. This calls for a solution like the
one that Aaron pointed out (although I'd rather just use to_char()..)

For now, I think we should keep the change simple. If PostgreSQL offers
a DATETIME WITHOUT TIME ZONE, I think we should use that, and rely on
the output from it.

In the end, we should keep the DATETIME WITHOUT TIME ZONE, but use the
right functions to get output from the database we can depend on.

Any thoughts on this?

Ilja

Ilja Booij wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I agree that we should use some kind of scheme to get a fixed format
> from the database. I wonder why to_char() and to_date() are not in
> MySQL. They are part of SQL92, aren't they?
>
> Is it possible to include the database functions, from the URL Aaron
> provided, in an installation script? If so, we could use this.
>
> Ilja
>
> Aaron Stone wrote:
>
>> Using explicit ANSI SQL functions should give us better portability to
>> whatever default format the database wants to use. I think it's quite
>> bad form
>> that we're currently assuming that the database will store and return the
>> format that we want simply because we remembered to use the right
>> column type.
>>
>> SELECT to_char(datecolumn, 'YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS') FROM whatevertable;
>>
>> UPDATE whatevertable SET datecolumn = to_date('1999-02-01
>> 00:00:00','YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS');
>>
>> In MySQL, to_date and to_char do not exist. date_format is used
>> instead. At
>> the moment, we implement lots of queries (all of them, perhaps) in the
>> midlevel and so it would probably be a pain to push the date stuff
>> down into
>> the database specific lowlevel. So as an alternative, we could use MySQL
>> specific date functions in the midlevel and then use a series of stored
>> functions to emulate the MySQL stuff in PostgreSQL and elsewhere. See
>> here:
>>
>> http://www.xach.com/aolserver/mysql-functions.sql
>>
>> Aaron
>>
>>
>> ""Matthew T. O'Connor"" <matthew@zeut.net> said:
>>
>>
>>> Paul F. De La Cruz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 09:16:59PM -0000, Aaron Stone wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> As long as this doesn't cause pre-7.1 version of PostgreSQL to
>>>>> choke, the
>>>>> change should definitely be made before 2.0rc3!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think it would make the pre-7.1 versions of PostgreSQL choke as they
>>
>>
>> either only have timestamp (without the additional 'with/without time
>> zone' or
>> use some other strange format. I'm thinking that this may be a problem
>> that's
>> been around for awhile and just wasn't noticed since PostgreSQL seems
>> to give
>> dates different from what date_sql2imap is looking for. I'm no PostgreSQL
>> expert though so if someone knows otherwise concerning older PG
>> versions, then
>> by all means speak up.
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't see a big problem dropping support for pre-7.1. 7.0.x is
>>> very old. Anyone who is actually interested in running dbmail would
>>> want a newer postgresql. Also, the number of users still on
>>> postgresql that old is very small, see this little survey from the
>>> postgresql website:
>>>
>>> http://www.postgresql.org/survey.php?View=1&SurveyID=14
>>>
>>> I'm not exactly sure what date that survey was taken, but based on
>>> the 7.4 DEV that is listed I would assume it is at least before 7.4
>>> was released which was back in November.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Dbmail-dev mailing list
>>> Dbmail-dev@dbmail.org
>>> http://twister.fastxs.net/mailman/listinfo/dbmail-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Dbmail-dev mailing list
> Dbmail-dev@dbmail.org
> http://twister.fastxs.net/mailman/listinfo/dbmail-dev
Re: postgres create table script creates incorrect physmessage table [ In reply to ]
Oh, oh I got it! In mysql/dbmysql.c and pgsql/pgsql.c we define variable(s):
MySQL:
const char *TO_DATE = "DATE_FORMAT(%s, \"%%Y-%%m-%%d %%H:%%m:%%s\")";
const char *TO_DATE = "DATE_FORMAT(%s, \"%%Y-%%m-%%d %%H:%%m:%%s\")";
PostgreSQL:
const char *TO_DATE = "TO_DATE(%s, \"YYYY-MM-DD HH:MI:SS\" )";
const char *TO_CHAR = "TO_CHAR(%s, \"YYYY-MM-DD HH:MI:SS\" )";

Then, in db.c, we call it as an extern and use it in queries.

Just one problem: I don't remember if *printf() will do substitution within
the substitutions. We'd rely on having one %s argument in the TO_DATE and
TO_CHAR variables so that we can insert the current date or the column name.
If printf() won't do that, then we'd have to use header files to define a
static string "macro" and stringify it into the queries.

Aaron


Ilja Booij <ilja@ic-s.nl> said:

> Hi,
>
> I was thinking of the best way to solve this problem.
>
> Clearly, in the end, we should not be dependent on the format in which
> the database stores the DATE-format. This calls for a solution like the
> one that Aaron pointed out (although I'd rather just use to_char()..)
>
> For now, I think we should keep the change simple. If PostgreSQL offers
> a DATETIME WITHOUT TIME ZONE, I think we should use that, and rely on
> the output from it.
>
> In the end, we should keep the DATETIME WITHOUT TIME ZONE, but use the
> right functions to get output from the database we can depend on.
>
> Any thoughts on this?
>
> Ilja
>
> Ilja Booij wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I agree that we should use some kind of scheme to get a fixed format
> > from the database. I wonder why to_char() and to_date() are not in
> > MySQL. They are part of SQL92, aren't they?
> >
> > Is it possible to include the database functions, from the URL Aaron
> > provided, in an installation script? If so, we could use this.
> >
> > Ilja
> >
> > Aaron Stone wrote:
> >
> >> Using explicit ANSI SQL functions should give us better portability to
> >> whatever default format the database wants to use. I think it's quite
> >> bad form
> >> that we're currently assuming that the database will store and return the
> >> format that we want simply because we remembered to use the right
> >> column type.
> >>
> >> SELECT to_char(datecolumn, 'YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS') FROM whatevertable;
> >>
> >> UPDATE whatevertable SET datecolumn = to_date('1999-02-01
> >> 00:00:00','YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS');
> >>
> >> In MySQL, to_date and to_char do not exist. date_format is used
> >> instead. At
> >> the moment, we implement lots of queries (all of them, perhaps) in the
> >> midlevel and so it would probably be a pain to push the date stuff
> >> down into
> >> the database specific lowlevel. So as an alternative, we could use MySQL
> >> specific date functions in the midlevel and then use a series of stored
> >> functions to emulate the MySQL stuff in PostgreSQL and elsewhere. See
> >> here:
> >>
> >> http://www.xach.com/aolserver/mysql-functions.sql
> >>
> >> Aaron
> >>
> >>
> >> ""Matthew T. O'Connor"" <matthew@zeut.net> said:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Paul F. De La Cruz wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 09:16:59PM -0000, Aaron Stone wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> As long as this doesn't cause pre-7.1 version of PostgreSQL to
> >>>>> choke, the
> >>>>> change should definitely be made before 2.0rc3!
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I think it would make the pre-7.1 versions of PostgreSQL choke as they
> >>
> >>
> >> either only have timestamp (without the additional 'with/without time
> >> zone' or
> >> use some other strange format. I'm thinking that this may be a problem
> >> that's
> >> been around for awhile and just wasn't noticed since PostgreSQL seems
> >> to give
> >> dates different from what date_sql2imap is looking for. I'm no PostgreSQL
> >> expert though so if someone knows otherwise concerning older PG
> >> versions, then
> >> by all means speak up.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I don't see a big problem dropping support for pre-7.1. 7.0.x is
> >>> very old. Anyone who is actually interested in running dbmail would
> >>> want a newer postgresql. Also, the number of users still on
> >>> postgresql that old is very small, see this little survey from the
> >>> postgresql website:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.postgresql.org/survey.php?View=1&SurveyID=14
> >>>
> >>> I'm not exactly sure what date that survey was taken, but based on
> >>> the 7.4 DEV that is listed I would assume it is at least before 7.4
> >>> was released which was back in November.
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Dbmail-dev mailing list
> >>> Dbmail-dev@dbmail.org
> >>> http://twister.fastxs.net/mailman/listinfo/dbmail-dev
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dbmail-dev mailing list
> > Dbmail-dev@dbmail.org
> > http://twister.fastxs.net/mailman/listinfo/dbmail-dev
> _______________________________________________
> Dbmail-dev mailing list
> Dbmail-dev@dbmail.org
> http://twister.fastxs.net/mailman/listinfo/dbmail-dev
>



--
Re: postgres create table script creates incorrect physmessage table [ In reply to ]
Hi,

these changes are in CVS. Changed a bit though. Since there is no
inputting of timestamps other than CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, I have not used
the TO_DATE string yet, but a function to use it is already in db.c :)
db_insert_physmessage() uses CURRENT_TIMESTAMP.


I've tested with PostgreSQL, and it seems to work. If anybody wants to
test with MySQL, please go ahead!

Ilja


Aaron Stone wrote:

> Oh, oh I got it! In mysql/dbmysql.c and pgsql/pgsql.c we define variable(s):
> MySQL:
> const char *TO_DATE = "DATE_FORMAT(%s, \"%%Y-%%m-%%d %%H:%%m:%%s\")";
> const char *TO_DATE = "DATE_FORMAT(%s, \"%%Y-%%m-%%d %%H:%%m:%%s\")";
> PostgreSQL:
> const char *TO_DATE = "TO_DATE(%s, \"YYYY-MM-DD HH:MI:SS\" )";
> const char *TO_CHAR = "TO_CHAR(%s, \"YYYY-MM-DD HH:MI:SS\" )";
>
> Then, in db.c, we call it as an extern and use it in queries.
>
> Just one problem: I don't remember if *printf() will do substitution within
> the substitutions. We'd rely on having one %s argument in the TO_DATE and
> TO_CHAR variables so that we can insert the current date or the column name.
> If printf() won't do that, then we'd have to use header files to define a
> static string "macro" and stringify it into the queries.
>
> Aaron
>
>
> Ilja Booij <ilja@ic-s.nl> said:
>
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I was thinking of the best way to solve this problem.
>>
>>Clearly, in the end, we should not be dependent on the format in which
>>the database stores the DATE-format. This calls for a solution like the
>>one that Aaron pointed out (although I'd rather just use to_char()..)
>>
>>For now, I think we should keep the change simple. If PostgreSQL offers
>>a DATETIME WITHOUT TIME ZONE, I think we should use that, and rely on
>>the output from it.
>>
>>In the end, we should keep the DATETIME WITHOUT TIME ZONE, but use the
>>right functions to get output from the database we can depend on.
>>
>>Any thoughts on this?
>>
>>Ilja
>>
>>Ilja Booij wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>I agree that we should use some kind of scheme to get a fixed format
>>>from the database. I wonder why to_char() and to_date() are not in
>>>MySQL. They are part of SQL92, aren't they?
>>>
>>>Is it possible to include the database functions, from the URL Aaron
>>>provided, in an installation script? If so, we could use this.
>>>
>>>Ilja
>>>
>>>Aaron Stone wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Using explicit ANSI SQL functions should give us better portability to
>>>>whatever default format the database wants to use. I think it's quite
>>>>bad form
>>>>that we're currently assuming that the database will store and return the
>>>>format that we want simply because we remembered to use the right
>>>>column type.
>>>>
>>>>SELECT to_char(datecolumn, 'YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS') FROM whatevertable;
>>>>
>>>>UPDATE whatevertable SET datecolumn = to_date('1999-02-01
>>>> 00:00:00','YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS');
>>>>
>>>>In MySQL, to_date and to_char do not exist. date_format is used
>>>>instead. At
>>>>the moment, we implement lots of queries (all of them, perhaps) in the
>>>>midlevel and so it would probably be a pain to push the date stuff
>>>>down into
>>>>the database specific lowlevel. So as an alternative, we could use MySQL
>>>>specific date functions in the midlevel and then use a series of stored
>>>>functions to emulate the MySQL stuff in PostgreSQL and elsewhere. See
>>>>here:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.xach.com/aolserver/mysql-functions.sql
>>>>
>>>>Aaron
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>""Matthew T. O'Connor"" <matthew@zeut.net> said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Paul F. De La Cruz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 09:16:59PM -0000, Aaron Stone wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As long as this doesn't cause pre-7.1 version of PostgreSQL to
>>>>>>>choke, the
>>>>>>>change should definitely be made before 2.0rc3!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I think it would make the pre-7.1 versions of PostgreSQL choke as they
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>either only have timestamp (without the additional 'with/without time
>>>>zone' or
>>>>use some other strange format. I'm thinking that this may be a problem
>>>>that's
>>>>been around for awhile and just wasn't noticed since PostgreSQL seems
>>>>to give
>>>>dates different from what date_sql2imap is looking for. I'm no PostgreSQL
>>>>expert though so if someone knows otherwise concerning older PG
>>>>versions, then
>>>>by all means speak up.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>I don't see a big problem dropping support for pre-7.1. 7.0.x is
>>>>>very old. Anyone who is actually interested in running dbmail would
>>>>>want a newer postgresql. Also, the number of users still on
>>>>>postgresql that old is very small, see this little survey from the
>>>>>postgresql website:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.postgresql.org/survey.php?View=1&SurveyID=14
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not exactly sure what date that survey was taken, but based on
>>>>>the 7.4 DEV that is listed I would assume it is at least before 7.4
>>>>>was released which was back in November.
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>Dbmail-dev mailing list
>>>>>Dbmail-dev@dbmail.org
>>>>>http://twister.fastxs.net/mailman/listinfo/dbmail-dev
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Dbmail-dev mailing list
>>>Dbmail-dev@dbmail.org
>>>http://twister.fastxs.net/mailman/listinfo/dbmail-dev
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Dbmail-dev mailing list
>>Dbmail-dev@dbmail.org
>>http://twister.fastxs.net/mailman/listinfo/dbmail-dev
>>
>
>
>
>