Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Pl/Java - next step?

From: "Thomas Hallgren" <thhal(at)mailblocks(dot)com>
To: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,"Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Subject: Re: Pl/Java - next step?
Date: 2004-02-23 17:32:39
Message-ID: 002501c3fa33$08e64290$6401a8c0@ad.eoncompany.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> Option 5 (or 0) would be to use GCJ.  This is likely to be the fastest
> and most lightweight solution, but perhaps not the most featureful.
>
GCJ is definitely an alternative for the reasons you mention. I didn't
mention it (nor any other JVM) because I see it as one of several "JVM's"
that Pl/Java should be able to use. It comes with JNI (and what they claim a
much faster alternative). I'm currently looking into what's needed in order
to use GCJ for Pl/Java_JNI.

Regards,

Thomas Hallgren


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2004-02-23 17:37:41
Subject: Re: Heads up: 7.3.6 and 7.4.2 coming soon
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2004-02-23 16:14:09
Subject: Re: Pl/Java - next step?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group