Re: Re: [INTERFACES] RE: JDBC now needs updates for lar ge objects

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
Cc: Peter Mount <petermount(at)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk>, pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: [INTERFACES] RE: JDBC now needs updates for lar ge objects
Date: 2000-10-25 15:50:45
Message-ID: 28695.972489045@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces

Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> writes:
> Perhaps a good long-term solution for this would be to support
> INFORMATION_SCHEMA per SQL92? This requires basic schema support, of course
> :-)

Yes, I think that's the right answer in the long run. Won't happen for
a release or three though...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-10-25 15:56:32 Re: RE: JDBC now needs updates for large objects
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-10-25 15:42:22 Re: Bogus-looking SSL code in postmaster wait loop

Browse pgsql-interfaces by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-10-25 15:56:32 Re: RE: JDBC now needs updates for large objects
Previous Message Tony Simopoulos 2000-10-25 15:15:26 Re: RE: JDBC now needs updates for large objects