From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-Id: <200101242301.SAA09396@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Re: [INTERFACES] Patch for JDBC timestamp problems
In-Reply-To: <3A6F5668.3C7443F7@selectacast.net> "from Joseph Shraibman at Jan
	24, 2001 05:25:44 pm"
To: Joseph Shraibman <jks@selectacast.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 18:01:38 -0500 (EST)
CC: PostgreSQL jdbc list <pgsql-jdbc@postgresql.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UNKNOWN-8BIT


OK, so you are saying I should apply the patch that removes the the
static.  I will do it now.  Thanks.  That clears up a few open emails
for me.


> 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@selectacast.net
> Increase signal to noise ratio.  http://www.targabot.com
> 


-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026