| From: | Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter van Hardenberg <pvh(at)pvh(dot)ca>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Joseph Adams <joeyadams3(dot)14159(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: JSON for PG 9.2 |
| Date: | 2011-12-15 08:31:39 |
| Message-ID: | CAP7QgmntStLutMRHsWZhpDV=-g3-KprT+SpVisb5kinz2atE_A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Mozilla SpiderMonkey seems like a good fit: it compiles to a
> dependency free .so, has excellent platform support, has a stable C
> API, and while it's C++ internally makes no use of exceptions (in
> fact, it turns them off in the c++ compiler). ISTM to be a suitable
> foundation for an external module, 'in core' parser, pl, or anything
> really.
When I started to think about PL/js, I compared three of SpiderMonkey,
SquirrelFish, and V8. SpiderMonkey at that time (around 2009) was
not-fast, not-small in memory while what you raise, as well as its
advanced features like JS1.7 (pure yield!), was attractive. Also
SpiderMonkey was a little harder to build in arbitrary platform
(including Windows) than v8. SquirrelFish was fastest of three, but
yet it's sticky with Webkit and also hard to build itself. Dunno how
they've changed since then.
Thanks,
--
Hitoshi Harada
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Albe Laurenz | 2011-12-15 09:38:55 | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2011-12-15 03:26:56 | Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf |