Re: [HACKERS] Request for 7.0 JDBC status

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
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: 2000-05-02 16:02:04
Message-ID: 4100.957283324@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces

Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
>> Not to bug you Peter, but 7.0 may not wait three days before release.

> I would vote that this is important enough that it should wait, but no
> one has raised the issue until now so we haven't discussed it.

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".

Relevant question: how well does the JDBC code that's in CVS now
work with 7.0? If the answer is "hardly at all" then a new driver
is probably better even if it has lurking bugs. If the answer is
"pretty well" then again I'd be inclined to ship what we've got.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Don Baccus 2000-05-02 16:23:07 Re: [HACKERS] Request for 7.0 JDBC status
Previous Message Thomas Lockhart 2000-05-02 15:56:14 Hardcopy docs about ready

Browse pgsql-interfaces by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Don Baccus 2000-05-02 16:23:07 Re: [HACKERS] Request for 7.0 JDBC status
Previous Message Peter Mount 2000-05-02 13:25:35 RE: [HACKERS] Request for 7.0 JDBC status