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

Re: Shared memory

From: Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: 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: 2006-03-27 18:09:44
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> It's only that much difference?  Given all the other advantages of
>>> separating the JVM from the backends, I'd say you should gladly pay
>>> that price.
>> If I'm right, and the most common scenario is clients using connection pools, then it's very 
>> likely that you don't get any advantages at all. Paying for nothing with a 440% increase in 
>> calling time (at best) seems expensive :-)
> You are focused too narrowly on a few performance numbers.  In my mind
> the primary advantage is that it will *work*.  I do not actually believe
> that you'll ever get the embedded-JVM approach to production-grade
> reliability, because of the fundamental problems with threading, error
> processing, etc.
My focus with PL/Java over the last year has been to make it a 
production-grade product and I think I've succeeded pretty well. The 
current list of open bugs is second to none. What fundamental problems 
are you thinking of that hasn't been solved already?

Thomas Hallgren

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2006-03-27 19:39:54
Subject: proposal - plpgsql: execute using into
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-03-27 17:18:27
Subject: Why are default encoding conversions namespace-specific?

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