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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

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