Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: PostgreSQL in the press again

From: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: Thomas Hallgren <thhal(at)mailblocks(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org,"Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL in the press again
Date: 2004-11-13 20:21:12
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004, Thomas Hallgren wrote:

> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Yes but I believe even you would agree that their are programming
>> languages that are better for certain tasks than others. The use of
>> java as a replication engine for PostgreSQL seems, well... incorrect.
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> We definitely concur with that, which is why we are re-writing it ...
>> going to Java, as Andrew has mentioned, was *not* a design decision that
>> we made, but was made for us :(
> Now I get really curious. Why would Java be a bad choice for a replication 
> engine? I would consider it an excellent choice, provided of course that the 
> people tasked with the implementation had the right skills. C-JDBC for 
> instance, is written in Java.

Everyone obviously has their opinion, but in mine, Java just has toooooo 
large of a memory foot print ... I don't know enough about Java to know if 
this is something that is restricted to how eRServer/Java was coded or 
not, but by default, the damn thing takes something like 300Mb of RAM for 
just the engine :(

Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

In response to


pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Jan WieckDate: 2004-11-13 23:19:33
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL in the press again
Previous:From: Thomas HallgrenDate: 2004-11-13 19:58:00
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL in the press again

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group