| From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Hallgren <thhal(at)mailblocks(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL in the press again |
| Date: | 2004-11-13 20:21:12 |
| Message-ID: | 20041113162008.P35502@ganymede.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Yes but I believe even you would agree that their are programming
>> languages that are better for certain tasks than others. The use of
>> java as a replication engine for PostgreSQL seems, well... incorrect.
>
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> We definitely concur with that, which is why we are re-writing it ...
>> going to Java, as Andrew has mentioned, was *not* a design decision that
>> we made, but was made for us :(
>>
> Now I get really curious. Why would Java be a bad choice for a replication
> engine? I would consider it an excellent choice, provided of course that the
> people tasked with the implementation had the right skills. C-JDBC for
> instance, is written in Java.
Everyone obviously has their opinion, but in mine, Java just has toooooo
large of a memory foot print ... I don't know enough about Java to know if
this is something that is restricted to how eRServer/Java was coded or
not, but by default, the damn thing takes something like 300Mb of RAM for
just the engine :(
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2004-11-13 23:19:33 | Re: PostgreSQL in the press again |
| Previous Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2004-11-13 19:58:00 | Re: PostgreSQL in the press again |