On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 19:49, Radosław Smogura <mail(at)smogura(dot)eu> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Maybe you are interested about this what I done with JDBC

<snip>


> Driver is here http://www.rsmogura.net/pgsql/pgjdbc_exp_20101130_C.tar.gz is
> currently JDK 6 compatible (will be not), compressed patch takes about 136kb
> gziped.

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 ;)


-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

• Improved JDBC driver part 2 at 2010-11-30 18:49:03 from Radosław Smogura

Responses

• Re: [HACKERS] Improved JDBC driver part 2 at 2010-12-01 12:27:59 from Lew
• Re: [HACKERS] Improved JDBC driver part 2 at 2010-12-01 13:59:39 from Radosław Smogura
• Re: [HACKERS] Improved JDBC driver part 2 at 2010-12-01 16:06:58 from David Fetter

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Kristian Nielsen	Date: 2010-12-01 11:53:02
	Subject: Re: We need index-only scans
Previous:	From: Valentine Gogichashvili	Date: 2010-12-01 11:46:49
	Subject: Re: DELETE with LIMIT (or my first hack)

pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:	From: Lew	Date: 2010-12-01 12:27:59
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Improved JDBC driver part 2
Previous:	From: Radosław Smogura	Date: 2010-12-01 11:39:30
	Subject: Re: Storing timestamps in text format