| From: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [JDBC] Regarding GSoc Application |
| Date: | 2012-04-10 15:28:23 |
| Message-ID: | CAOeZVicsfHexSnqQX_ZuFqhgcChzkViKTsNiOjMKOg9qUyRGDg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc |
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> ... We have to invoke java and there
>> are two basic ways to tie into the java runtime: one is to jump
>> through SPI via the SQL executor. The other is JNI into the pl/java
>> jvm which I think you were hinting was the better approach.
>
> Hm? SPI doesn't know anything about Java either.
>
> regards, tom lane
Hi Tom,
We plan to call SQL through SPI from the FDW,which in turn would call
the Pl/Java routine.
We are working on the JNI Invocation API approach also.We will be
currently researching the differences between the two approaches(SPI
and JNI).
Atri
--
Regards,
Atri
l'apprenant
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-04-10 15:31:40 | Re: To Do wiki |
| Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2012-04-10 15:27:35 | Re: [JDBC] Regarding GSoc Application |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-04-10 15:36:38 | Re: [JDBC] Regarding GSoc Application |
| Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2012-04-10 15:27:35 | Re: [JDBC] Regarding GSoc Application |