From: | thomas at tada(dot)se (Thomas Hallgren) |
---|---|
To: | |
Subject: | [Pljava-dev] [HACKERS] Shared memory |
Date: | 2006-03-27 14:15:38 |
Message-ID: | 4427F38A.6090408@tada.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pljava-dev |
Rakesh Vidyadharan wrote:
> I agree with your view of connection pools. The only time I wished
> that PL/Java did not have such a "heavy" initialisation requirement
> was when I needed to use a Java stored procedure from C (it was too
> trivial to explore using a connection pool). I ended up writing an
> equivalent stored procedure in pgsql. This may be a major issue for
> some people, since one of the main benefits of using stored procedures
> is that your database logic becomes available to multiple technologies.
Good point.
>
> In my view the main benefit that may be derived form using a shared
> JVM is that you may be able to support more connections. Maybe you
> can just wait for the multi-tasking JVM to arrive on the scene. I am
> not sure how far the Java committee is on that, but there has been
> talk of developing one for quite a while now.
>
I think you mean the JSR121, where many JVM's can share resources by
running as "Java Isolates" in a MVM?. Unfortunately that will not help
much. A PostgreSQL backend process will still need to use ipc in order
to talk to the MVM process. What would help is if multiple JVM's, each
running as a separate process, could share a lot of resources but I
haven't seen any viable effort in that direction. I doubt it's doable
without major parts of the JVM being built into the kernel.
Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Page | 2006-03-27 14:30:11 | Re: Remote administration contrib module |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-03-27 14:00:06 | Re: Remote administration contrib module |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-27 15:31:47 | Re: Shared memory |
Previous Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2006-03-27 12:48:23 | Re: Shared memory |