My only thought was that we could leave the existing driver in place for
people who are depending on it. In retrospect this isn't a good idea. I
would recommend breaking existing code to make the driver compatible
with the standard.
--dc--
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-jdbc-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-jdbc-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Gunnar Rønning
Sent: June 26, 2001 12:32 PM
To: Dave@micro-automation.net
Cc: 'Barry Lind'; 'PostgreSQL jdbc list'
Subject: Re: [JDBC] RE: [ADMIN] High memory usage [PATCH]
* "Dave Cramer" <Dave@micro-automation.net> wrote:
|
| Regarding the catch-22 with Blob, etc. I think we need to make a harsh
| decision here. Either break the existing code, or create another
driver
| codebase. If we don't do something we will be doomed to
non-compliance.
| This will hurt the driver in the not too distant future. There are a
lot
| of tools out there which the driver needs to be compatible with.
|
I would say that it is better to break existing code that depends on
broken behaviour than being out of sync with the standard. Not following
the JDBC standard is just asking for a fork - there are a lot of
object relational tools out there and if want these to work with
postgresql
we have no choice.
--
Gunnar Rønning - gunnar@polygnosis.com
Senior Consultant, Polygnosis AS, http://www.polygnosis.com/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
