Re: Rumours

From: Jonathan Lewis <jonathan_at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 22:00:10 +0100
Message-ID: <930863308.4309.3.nnrp-07.9e984b29@news.demon.co.uk>

The question of how Oracle stores the date is not relevant. The point is: which database versions are deemed to be year 2000 compliant for support purposes, and the message delivered to the Unix SIG of the UKOUG by the official Oracle rep a short time ago was that for many platforms 7.3.4 is it.

Naturally this caused a significant amount of grief since many of the attendees had completed their Year 2000 testing based on the statement made about a year ago that support purposes 7.3.3 was the target version.

Jonathan Lewis (Chairman UKOUG Unix SIG) Yet another Oracle-related web site: www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk

Pete Sharman wrote in message <377BC7A2.185EC088_at_us.oracle.com>...
>OK, let's travel the road again. Seems I've been down this road a dozen
times
>now.
>
>Due to the way Oracle stores dates, the RDBMS in any release of version 8,
7, and
>probably back to the year dot has not had an issue with Y2K, unless there
has been
>a bug. The century is always stored.
>
>How your ***application*** deals with displaying it is another issue.
>
Received on Thu Jul 01 1999 - 16:00:10 CDT