| From: | AMatveev(at)bitec(dot)ru |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: One process per session lack of sharing |
| Date: | 2016-07-18 13:41:55 |
| Message-ID: | 118456757.20160718164155@bitec.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi
> This https://github.com/davecramer/plj-new is a very old project
> that did work at one time which attempted to do RPC calls to the jvm to address exactly this problem.
> However "cheaply" calling jvm from sql or vice-versa is not really possible.
> I do like the idea of the background worker and shared memory though.
It's not opposite concepts. It's like two level cache.
Something is best with shared memory.
When "a sharing of upper layer" is best with shared process.
And there is something that should not sharing at all.
Any deviation is always overhead.
But to be honest I really do not like "sharing".
It is against human nature.
And I will be really happy when there are processors with infinite
performance and memory with infinite size.
:)))
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-07-18 13:43:07 | Re: DO with a large amount of statements get stuck with high memory consumption |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2016-07-18 13:37:01 | Re: DO with a large amount of statements get stuck with high memory consumption |