Tom Lane wrote: > "Thomas Hallgren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > ** 4. Make the postmaster spawn threads rather than processes ** > > I know this is very controversial and perhaps I should not bring it up at > > all. But then again, why not? Most readers are open-minded right? > > It's been considered and rejected before, and pljava isn't going to tilt > the scales. In fact, the main thing that bothers me about your > description of JNI is "Java uses multithreading wether you like it or > not". I am very afraid of what impact a JVM will have on the stability > of the surrounding backend. > > Other than that fear, though, the JNI approach seems to have pretty > considerable advantages. You listed startup time as the main > disadvantage, but perhaps that could be worked around. Suppose the > postmaster started a JVM --- would that state inherit correctly into > subsequently forked backends? > > Also, regarding your option #3 (do both), do you really think something > different is going to happen in practice? The developers of the other > implementation aren't likely to give it up just because yours exists.
As I understand it, the JNI approach has one JVM per backend using java, while the Java/remote approach uses a single JVM for all backends and isolates them via classes. JNI says function execution will be faster and cleaner, while Java/remote feels system resource usage and startup time will be less. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
