Re: Y2K question

From: Matt Brennan <mbrennan_at_gers.antispam.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 17:09:13 GMT
Message-ID: <01bdc093$ccb0b460$049a0580@mcb>

Arjan van Bentem <avbentem_at_DONT-YOU-DAREdds.nl> wrote in article <6qa09c$c4c$1_at_pascal.a2000.nl>...
> >That's not a problem at all if you are totally OK with Oracle converting
it
> >to the same century as the system date (I think that's what it'll do)
>
> Wake up! Nobody can be "totally OK" with this behavior :-(
>
> Arjan.

Cool your jets Arjan - I *am* awake.

My own personal preference is to have the user specify a 4-digit year explicitly so no assumptions are made (I didn't care for the 'RR' logic we started to use here either (and we abandoned that as well - good thing!)). But the *original* poster can run *his* database any way he likes, that's all. And if he's comfortable in making assumptions about two-digit dates, then that's his business.

--
Matt Brennan
SQL*Tools Specialist
GERS Retail Systems
9725-C Scranton Road
San Diego, California 92121
1-800-854-2263
mbrennan_at_gers.com
(Original email address is spam-blocked.) Received on Wed Aug 05 1998 - 12:09:13 CDT