From: | Peter Mount <peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com>, tomasz konefal <twkonefal(at)yahoo(dot)ca>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: TODO list: Allow Java server-side programming |
Date: | 2001-02-04 11:51:21 |
Message-ID: | 5.0.2.1.0.20010204114942.00a0c8d0@mail.retep.org.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At 17:56 03/02/01 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>Peter Mount writes:
>
> > Thats correct. Basically you are talking of something like PL/Java. The
> > Java side would be simple, but its linking the JVM to the backend that's
> > the problem.
>
>I've tried that recently, here's how it looks as far as Linux JVMs go:
[snip]
>So currently I don't see how this could become a mainstream project, let
>alone across platforms.
I don't think it would be, but it would be a good side-project. Over time
the various JVM's should become better to interface with.
> > I know some people think this would slow the backend down, but it's only
> > the instanciation of the JVM thats slow, hence the other reason fork() is
> > holding this back. Ideally you would want the JVM to be running with
> > PostMaster, and then each backend can then use the JVM as and when
> necessary.
>
>But how do the other languages cope? Starting up a new Perl for each
>backend can't be so cheap either.
But a lot cheaper than Java.
Peter
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Mount | 2001-02-04 11:54:20 | Re: TODO list: Allow Java server-side programming |
Previous Message | Peter Mount | 2001-02-04 11:49:27 | Re: TODO list: Allow Java server-side programming |