From: | Peter Mount <petermount(at)it(dot)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Mount <petermount(at)it(dot)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: [HACKERS] 6.6 release |
Date: | 1999-12-10 08:12:57 |
Message-ID: | 1B3D5E532D18D311861A00600865478C70BF69@exchange1.nt.maidstone.gov.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I thought they were, but it's possible as I don't really know CVS that
well.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 8:11 AM
To: Peter Mount
Cc: PostgreSQL-development
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 6.6 release
Peter Mount <petermount(at)it(dot)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk> writes:
> It looks like it may be an idea now, as for some reason, some parts of
> the 6.5.3 JDBC driver isn't in 6.5.3?
> We had a similar problem with 6.5.2, so before 6.5.3 was released, I
> checked CVS to make sure the changes were there, and they were.
They may be in the tip, but are they in the REL6_5_PATCHES branch?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 1999-12-10 08:18:55 | Re: [HACKERS] 6.6 release |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-12-10 08:11:04 | Re: [HACKERS] 6.6 release |