Re: Is Informix 7.24.UC5-1 free of Feb 29, 2000 bug (Bug no. 60150).

On Wed, 9 Sep 1998, Chuanlarp Satchavarodom wrote: > My system is Informix 7.24.UC5-1. I was wondering whether it is free > of Bug 60150 as mentioned in the following discussion. Any answers will be > appreciated. Thank you very much. Since 7.25.UC5* was released after 7.24.UC4, you should be OK. You can verify that you are OK by testing what happens when you run: DBCENTURY=C DBDATE="dmy4/" dbaccess stores7 - <<! SELECT DATE('29/2/00') FROM SysTables WHERE tabid = 1; ! If you get error -1204 (Invalid year in date), then you still have B60150 in your code; if you don't get error -1204, then you are OK. I'm testing with 7.24.UC1; it has the bug, as documented by Cristian and June. Yours, Jonathan Leffler (jleffler@informix.com) #include <witticism.h> Guardian of DBD::Informix v0.60 -- http://www.perl.com/CPAN Informix IDN for D4GL & Linux -- http://www.informix.com/idn Cristian wrote: > >Yes, even with DBCENTURY correctly set, the engine fails to recognize > >Feb 29, 2000 as a valid date. Bug no is 60150. First versions that have > >this bug fixed are 7.23.UC9, 7.24.UC4 and 7.30.UC1. > > June Tong wrote: > > Vijay R. Anisetti wrote: > > > I have a 7.22 installation on one machine and 7.23 on another, > > > both are HP boxes. I was checking the Informix documentation > > > regarding the Year 2000 compliance of the Informix-Online Dynamic > > > Server, it says the versions >=7.23.UC9,>=7.24.UC6 are > > > recommended. But, my 7.22.UC1 inteprets DBCENTURY value just like > > > the 7.23.UC5. Is there any difference between the two? Will I be > > > Year 2000 compliant with 7.22.UC1? > > > > Depends on what you mean by "Year 2000 compliant". All versions of > > OnLine are "Year 2000 compliant" in that they do not store years as > > 2 digits. What you get in 7.20 is support for DBCENTURY. If > > Informix is recommending certain versions >7.20, it's probably > > because of bugs in the way DBCENTURY works or interprets certain > > dates (I seem to recall a bug with Feb.29, 2000, and whether it was > > accepted as a leap year or not).