Thomas Hallgren wrote:
>>Other than that fear, though, the JNI approach seems to have pretty
>>considerable advantages. You listed startup time as the main
>>disadvantage, but perhaps that could be worked around. Suppose the
>>postmaster started a JVM --- would that state inherit correctly into
>>subsequently forked backends?
>That's an interesting thougth. The postmaster just forks. It never exec's
>right? Is this true for win32 as well? I've never tried it but it might be
>worth pursuing. Sun's new Java 1.5 jvm does this albeit a bit differently.
>An initializer process starts up and persists its state. Subsequent JVM's
>then reuse that state. I definitely plan for Pl/Java_JNI to take advantage
Unfortunately, WIN32 has no fork(), and we have to exec the backend, in
effect. You would need to handle both scenarios (#ifdef EXEC_BACKEND).
For Unix this could be nice, though , and eliminate most of the
disadvantage of your approach.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Joe Conway||Date: 2004-02-21 18:46:38|
|Subject: Re: Pl/Java - next step?|
|Previous:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2004-02-21 17:37:13|
|Subject: pl/perl thoughts|