On 28-Mar-06, at 12:11 PM, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
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.
When was the last time you saw a JVM crash ? These are very rare now.
In any case if it does fail, it's a JVM bug and can happen to any
code running and take the server down if it is in process.
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
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
