Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [209.114.166.2])
	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA62173;
	Tue, 2 May 2000 12:08:19 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA04103;
	Tue, 2 May 2000 12:02:04 -0400 (EDT)
To: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>,
	Peter Mount <petermount@it.maidstone.gov.uk>,
	Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	PostgreSQL-interfaces <pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org>,
	"Peter Mount (Home)" <peter@retep.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Request for 7.0 JDBC status 
In-reply-to: <390EB8E2.6EE3D2DA@alumni.caltech.edu> 
References: <200005021102.HAA08318@candle.pha.pa.us>
	<390EB8E2.6EE3D2DA@alumni.caltech.edu>
Comments: In-reply-to Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
	message dated "Tue, 02 May 2000 11:15:46 -0000"
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 12:02:04 -0400
Message-ID: <4100.957283324@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Archive-Number: 200005/33

Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.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