4 ms·
I certainly did. There is a batch process to cull old records. It checks for customers who do not have a date of death recorded but are > 130 years old, as it a
by Smoosh 3y ago
I certainly did. There is a batch process to cull old records. It checks for customers who do not have a date of death recorded but are > 130 years old, as it assumes that we weren't informed of their death.
It takes 130 years from the current date and uses that in an SQL statement to compares it to the date of birth. DB2 doesn't like 1894-02-29.
Apparently it happens every 4 years, but no-one can be bothered to fix it.
- verbify 3y agoA simple fix would be to change it to a multiple of 4 (e.g. 124 years). Then it would fail every 100 years.
- samatman 3y ago128! It was right there!
- gield 3y ago2000 was a leap year so it would not fail in 2100. But it would indeed fail in 2200/2300/2400 as 2100/2200/2300 are not leap years.
- addandsubtract 3y agoBut then it's someone else's problem.
- topaz0 3y agoMost likely nobody's problem, really.
- offices 3y agoAnd it's still enough to include Jeanne Calment's supposed age.