On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 07:27:59AM -0500, Lew wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >Is there any particular reason why this work can't be maintained as
> >a branch to the main driver?  My understanding is your work is
> >based off that one?  Being able to work like that would make things
> >a lot easier to review.
> >
> >That said, such a process would also be a lot easier if the JDBC
> >driver wasn't in cvs ;)
> 
> Why is that a problem?

Because to an excellent approximation, in practice, CVS does not
actually provide the ability to branch and merge, which means that
patches like Radoslav's are developed pretty much in isolation.

Cheers,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

In response to

• Re: [HACKERS] Improved JDBC driver part 2 at 2010-12-01 12:27:59 from Lew

Responses

• Re: [HACKERS] Improved JDBC driver part 2 at 2010-12-01 23:43:21 from Lew

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2010-12-01 18:53:09
	Subject: Re: We really ought to do something about O_DIRECT and data=journalled on ext4
Previous:	From: Heikki Linnakangas	Date: 2010-12-01 18:51:19
	Subject: Re: Hot Standby: too many KnownAssignedXids

pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2010-12-01 18:56:03
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Improved JDBC driver part 2
Previous:	From: David Fetter	Date: 2010-12-01 18:05:15
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Improved JDBC driver part 2