Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 07:16:48PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I agree, that seems an entirely gratuitous choice of zone. It does
>> seem like a good idea to test a zone that has a nonintegral offset
>> from GMT, but we can get that from almost anywhere as long as we're
>> testing a pre-1900 date. There's no need to use any zones that aren't
>> long-established and unlikely to change.
> If we want a nonintegral offset, why are we not using 'Asia/Calcutta',
> which is +5:30 from UTC?
I believe there's already one of those tests that considers a zone like
that. No, I meant a really odd offset, like Paris' +0:09:21 before they
adopted standardized time.
regards, tom lane