Re: Three weeks left until feature freeze

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Dave Cramer" <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Satoshi Nagayasu" <nagayasus(at)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp>, "Thomas Hallgren" <thomas(at)tada(dot)se>
Subject: Re: Three weeks left until feature freeze
Date: 2006-07-13 02:44:19
Message-ID: 1676.1152758659@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Jonah H. Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 7/12/06, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
>> Are they mutually exclusive? I can imagine, at least for development
>> purposes, that someone might want to install both.

> I believe both can be installed and running at the same time. I don't
> really think anyone would want to run both, but that's just my
> opinion.

On what grounds do you not think that? PL/J uses an external JVM,
PL/Java one that is running in the backend process. (Or maybe it was
the other way 'round, I'm too tired to remember tonight.) That's a
really fundamental difference that makes them suited for very different
applications; not to mention the resulting different licensing scenarios.

The points that have been made in this thread about PL/J not being
actively maintained are important, but other than that objection,
I can see no reason that PL/J wouldn't have an equal claim to inclusion
in core. Perhaps more, because it gives us an extra layer of insulation
from JVM licensing questions.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-07-13 03:00:14 Re: Online index builds
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-07-13 02:34:58 Re: Implied Functional Index use