On Mon, 9 Apr 2012, Dave Cramer wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 8:20 PM, dmp <danap@ttc-cmc.net> wrote:
> >
> > If work is to be performed with the PostgreSQL JDBC wouldn't a task
> > which the community desires completed to update/expand the
> > functionality of the JDBC be more appropriate?
> >
>
> This pretty much sums up my opinion as well.
>
I think the confusion comes from the fact that this improvement is really
a server improvement and has nothing to do with the PG JDBC driver. Atri
was interested in doing something JDBC related and solicited for ideas
here, but ended up proposing something that would use the generic JDBC
interface, but not necessarily the Postgresql JDBC driver and would not
require modifying it even if it was used.
So it may be useful for Atri to continue to include the -jdbc list on
discussions if he wants specific advice on the JDBC API, but other than
that it is not a PG JDBC project.
Kris Jurka