On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 03:40, Radosław Smogura <rsmog...@softperience.eu> wrote: >> Regarding JDBC in the CF process -- other interfaces are handled >> there. I haven't seen one patch this size for JDBC since I've been >> involved, let alone two competing patches to implement the same >> feature. Small patches which can be quickly handled don't make sense >> to put into the process, but it seemed reasonable for these. > > In any way I'm sending this patch, and I will put this under Miscellaneous in > CF. This cleared patch takes only 47k (in uncleared was some binary read > classes) and about 50% it's big test case.
I changed the patch's topic to "JDBC". https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=399 Patch reviewers are still wanted. -- Itagaki Takahiro -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
