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

Re: Why isn't Java support part of Postgresql core?

From: cowwoc <cowwoc(at)bbs(dot)darktech(dot)org>
To: Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Why isn't Java support part of Postgresql core?
Date: 2014-09-15 17:34:53
Message-ID: 5417233D.2030905@bbs.darktech.org (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general
On 15/09/2014 7:03 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
> I have a few questions on this, the answers of which may help answer 
> your question:
>
> 1.  How well does having a server-side JVM work, resource-wise, when 
> you have a forked process model like PostgreSQL?  Does having the 
> additional JVM's pose performance and competition for resources that 
> lighter languages would not?

I don't think this is really a concern when connection pooling is used 
(otherwise you end up creating a new JVM per connection which is indeed 
problematic).

> 2.  What is your specific use case for a trigger in Java?

The main drivers are:

 1. Not having to learn yet another language. I find the expressiveness
    and readability of the other scripting languages very clunky
    compared to Java.
 2. Ease of porting triggers across databases. The only thing that
    really changes across databases is how triggers interact with
    input/output parameters. The main body remains the same (thanks to
    JDBC). This is quasi portability in the sense that the underlying
    SQL is itself quasi portable, but I find it a much more compelling
    approach than having to rewrite the triggers for each database type.

Gili

In response to

Responses

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: cowwocDate: 2014-09-15 17:37:16
Subject: Re: Why isn't Java support part of Postgresql core?
Previous:From: cowwocDate: 2014-09-15 17:30:59
Subject: Re: Why isn't Java support part of Postgresql core?

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