Thomas Hallgren wrote: > >Frankly, that is all FUD. > > No, that's all facts.
Those two are not mutually exclusive. > We where discussing a very specific situation here. Not GCJ in > general. As you pointed out yourself (and that's what started this > discussion), GCJ cannot be used for a trusted Java implementation. The way I was reading your statements was that you concluded from this sitation that GCJ should not be used at all for real work. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
