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?

-- 
Lew

In response to

• Re: [HACKERS] Improved JDBC driver part 2 at 2010-12-01 11:47:13 from Magnus Hagander

Responses

• Re: [HACKERS] Improved JDBC driver part 2 at 2010-12-01 18:51:56 from David Fetter

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Marko Tiikkaja	Date: 2010-12-01 13:11:25
	Subject: Re: DELETE with LIMIT (or my first hack)
Previous:	From: Heikki Linnakangas	Date: 2010-12-01 12:23:32
	Subject: Re: Hi- How frequently Postgres Poll for trigger file

pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:	From: Radosław Smogura	Date: 2010-12-01 13:59:39
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Improved JDBC driver part 2
Previous:	From: Magnus Hagander	Date: 2010-12-01 11:47:13
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Improved JDBC driver part 2