| From: | Joseph Shraibman <jks(at)selectacast(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL jdbc list <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Re: [INTERFACES] Patch for JDBC timestamp problems |
| Date: | 2001-01-24 22:25:44 |
| Message-ID: | 3A6F5668.3C7443F7@selectacast.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-interfaces pgsql-jdbc pgsql-patches |
Joseph Shraibman wrote:
>
> No, it cannot be static.
>
Well actually there could be static variables, but they could not be
used directly. It might pay just to keep them around to clone() so we
don't have to reconstruct them for every method that uses them. But the
performance gain would be minimal and would add a bit of confusion to
the code, so I don't suggest it.
--
Joseph Shraibman
jks(at)selectacast(dot)net
Increase signal to noise ratio. http://www.targabot.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-01-24 23:01:38 | Re: [PATCHES] Re: [INTERFACES] Patch for JDBC timestamp problems |
| Previous Message | Poul Kristensen | 2001-01-24 21:58:33 | Sv: Postgres ODBC |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-01-24 23:01:38 | Re: [PATCHES] Re: [INTERFACES] Patch for JDBC timestamp problems |
| Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2001-01-24 22:22:07 | Re: Re: [GENERAL] Re: JDBC Performance |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2001-01-24 22:35:48 | Additional ODBC patch |
| Previous Message | Joseph Shraibman | 2001-01-24 21:56:54 | Re: [PATCHES] Re: Patch for JDBC timestamp problems |