> That's the plan; it just needs implementing. There are also some
> interactions with changing transaction isolation levels that should be
> dealt with at the same time.
> This is somewhere on my todo list and I'll get to it eventually if noone
> else does, but there's quite a bit of other stuff ahead of it at the
Wow, thanks. Yeah, I agree about priorities. The problem doesn't bother me
at all since we've not seen any issues with PG and it's worked like a champ
for several years in multiple deployments, including being used in Fortune
500 deployments, by our office edition licensees of Signed & Secured, and to
drive our public web service at yozons.com. It's just been awesome, fast
and reliable. In fact, when we had to port Oracle, we had to "dumb down"
our application a bit because of their odd handling of BLOBs, inability to
support multiple TEXT (LONG) fields in a single table and their shorter
table and field names.
In response to
pgsql-jdbc by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Lazarus||Date: 2004-04-09 04:33:19|
|Subject: Re: Visual tools|
|Previous:||From: Oliver Jowett||Date: 2004-04-09 03:11:09|
|Subject: Re: Connection Idle in transaction|