Tom Lane wrote:
Thomas Hallgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This FENCED/NOT FENCED terminology would be a good way to
differentiate between the two approaches. Any chance of that syntax
making it into the PostgreSQL grammar, should the need arise?
Of what value would it be to have it in the grammar? The behavior would
be entirely internal to any particular PL in any case.
Not necessarily but perhaps the term FENCED is incorrect for the concept
that I have in mind.
All languages that are implemented using a VM could benefit from the
same remote UDF protocol. Java, C#, perhaps even Perl or Ruby. The flag
that I'd like to have would control 'in-process' versus 'remote'.
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.
Then again, perhaps it's a bad idea to have this in the function
declaration in the first place. A custom GUC parameter might be a better
choice. It will not be possible to have some functions use the
in-process approach and others to execute remotely but I doubt that will
matter that much.
I'm still eager to hear what it is in the current PL/Java that you
consider fundamental unresolvable problems.
Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
