Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Request for 7.0 JDBC status

From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Mount <petermount(at)it(dot)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk>, Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-interfaces <pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Peter Mount (Home)" <peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Request for 7.0 JDBC status
Date: 2000-05-03 04:21:04
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-interfaces
> My two cents: I wouldn't object to postponing release a day or so for
> it, *but* if what we're getting is an un-beta-tested driver then my
> level of enthusiasm drops considerably.  I'd rather say "it'll get
> fixed in 7.0.1, after a decent testing interval for the new driver".

Both versions of JDBC are in the Postgres source code tree. The newer
version has more standard conventions for Java namespaces (right
term??) and improvements in conformance to later versions of the JDBC

Basically the stuff is there already, and we just have a few file
updates to get it finalized. I'd be suprised if it is not ready by the
weekend, so it shouldn't be much of an issue.

                     - Thomas

Thomas Lockhart				lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu
South Pasadena, California

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2000-05-03 04:25:43
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Hardcopy docs about ready
Previous:From: The Hermit HackerDate: 2000-05-03 04:19:53
Subject: Testing something ...

pgsql-interfaces by date

Next:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2000-05-03 04:51:19
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 7.0RC2 compile error !
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-05-03 03:53:12
Subject: Re: DBI and Pg error

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group