From: | Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PL/Java Development <Pljava-dev(at)gborg(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Shared memory |
Date: | 2006-03-28 17:11:00 |
Message-ID: | 44296E24.5010602@tada.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pljava-dev |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se> writes:
>
>> This FENCED/NOT FENCED terminology would be a good way to
>> differentiate between the two approaches. Any chance of that syntax
>> making it into the PostgreSQL grammar, should the need arise?
>>
>
> Of what value would it be to have it in the grammar? The behavior would
> be entirely internal to any particular PL in any case.
>
>
Not necessarily but perhaps the term FENCED is incorrect for the concept
that I have in mind.
All languages that are implemented using a VM could benefit from the
same remote UDF protocol. Java, C#, perhaps even Perl or Ruby. The flag
that I'd like to have would control 'in-process' versus 'remote'.
I'm not too keen on the term FENCED, since it, in the PL/Java case will
lead to poorer isolation. Multiple threads running in the same JVM will
be able to share data and a JVM crash will affect all connected sessions.
Then again, perhaps it's a bad idea to have this in the function
declaration in the first place. A custom GUC parameter might be a better
choice. It will not be possible to have some functions use the
in-process approach and others to execute remotely but I doubt that will
matter that much.
I'm still eager to hear what it is in the current PL/Java that you
consider fundamental unresolvable problems.
Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-03-28 17:56:22 | Re: Shared memory |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-28 16:58:33 | Re: Why are default encoding conversions |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-03-28 17:56:22 | Re: Shared memory |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-28 16:38:03 | Re: Shared memory |