Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1t6Hz1-00BvGa-Kk for pgsql-committers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 23:20:11 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1t6Hyz-00DQeD-Ge for pgsql-committers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 23:20:09 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1t6Hyz-00DQdw-9V for pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 23:20:09 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1t6Hyx-003hDi-4U for pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 23:20:08 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 49UNK57T904935; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 19:20:05 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Andrew Dunstan cc: pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: pgsql: Update time zone data files to tzdata release 2024b. In-reply-to: <871448.1730329676@sss.pgh.pa.us> References: <362289.1730241666@sss.pgh.pa.us> <55A5E01C-1B0F-40F9-94EA-FEDED1575C92@dunslane.net> <595311.1730300440@sss.pgh.pa.us> <764322.1730320400@sss.pgh.pa.us> <868637.1730328216@sss.pgh.pa.us> <871448.1730329676@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane message dated "Wed, 30 Oct 2024 19:07:56 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <904933.1730330405.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 19:20:05 -0400 Message-ID: <904934.1730330405@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk I wrote: > So the problem is precisely that *our* interpretation of EST5EDT > changed when we adopted tzdata 2024b, and that is affecting how > we dump these old timestamps. Or at least, that seems like what > should be happening, but then why is only crake showing a failure? Oh, got it: of the machines in question, only crake is selecting EST5EDT as default timezone. I can see from the buildfarm logs that drongo and fairywren are using UTC, and as said, my test instance is selecting America/New_York. Both UTC and America/New_York would have rendered these old timestamps the same way all along, but EST5EDT just changed its interpretation of them. That means that simply forcing a re-run of the old branches on crake won't fix it, because pre-v12 branches will still think that EST5EDT means what it used to. We need to make sure that the dumps are taken in a completely stable zone, i.e. UTC. regards, tom lane