Received: from thor.candleweb.no (thor.candleweb.no [195.139.160.194])
	by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f2JMirN78934;
	Mon, 19 Mar 2001 17:44:53 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from gunnar@candleweb.no)
Received: (from gunnar@localhost) by thor.candleweb.no (8.10.0/8.10.0/on4)
	id <f2JMceh23448>; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 23:38:40 +0100 (MET)
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: Peter Mount <peter@retep.org.uk>, "Thies C. Arntzen" <thies@digicol.de>,
	pgsql-jdbc@postgresql.org,
	PostgreSQL-interfaces <pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [JDBC] Re: PostgreSQL and PHP persistent connections
References: <200103192201.RAA05090@candle.pha.pa.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: Gunnar R|nning <gunnar@candleweb.no>
Date: 19 Mar 2001 23:38:39 +0100
In-Reply-To: Bruce Momjian's message of "Mon,
 19 Mar 2001 17:01:26 -0500 (EST)"
Message-ID: <x6zoehpeog.fsf@thor.candleweb.no>
Lines: 13
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.65/Emacs 19.34
X-Archive-Number: 200103/147
X-Sequence-Number: 1308

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

> 
> I don't think that belongs in jdbc.  It is the connection pooling code
> that should execute those statements before passing over a new
> connection.  No reason to have it for all jdbc users.

Well, I think most connection pools people use are database independent -
when it comes to JDBC this is the case at least. 

regards, 

	Gunnar