Re: Shared memory

From: Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se>
To: Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 19:11:47
Message-ID: 44298A73.9090303@tada.se
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pljava-dev

Dave Cramer wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
> When was the last time you saw a JVM crash ? These are very rare now.
I think that's somewhat dependent on what JVM you're using. For the
commercial ones, BEA, IBM, and Sun, i fully agree.

> In any case if it does fail, it's a JVM bug and can happen to any code
> running and take the server down if it is in process.
Crash is perhaps not the right word. My point concerned level of
isolation. Code that is badly written may have serious impact on other
threads in the same JVM. Let's say you cause an OutOfMemoryException or
an endless loop. The former will render the JVM completely useless and
the latter will cause low scheduling prio. If the same thing happens
using an in-process JVM, the problem is isolated to that one session.

Regards,
Thomas Hallgren

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nichlas Löfdahl 2006-03-28 19:21:01 autovacuum: could not access status of transaction
Previous Message Dave Cramer 2006-03-28 18:27:02 Re: Shared memory

Browse pljava-dev by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Hallgren 2006-03-28 19:21:11 Re: Shared memory
Previous Message Dave Cramer 2006-03-28 18:27:02 Re: Shared memory