On 7/12/06, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > I don't really think anyone would want to run both, but
> > that's just my opinion.
>
> On what grounds do you not think that?
Too much Java overhead on one database and PL/J isn't that stable.
I've run into several crash problems with it before.
> PL/J uses an external JVM, PL/Java one that is running in the
> backend process. (Or maybe it was the other way 'round, I'm too
> tired to remember tonight.)
While tired, you're still correct :)
> That's a really fundamental difference that makes them suited for very different
> applications; not to mention the resulting different licensing scenarios.
Not really, both require a JVM so the same licensing still applies.
> The points that have been made in this thread about PL/J not being
> actively maintained are important, but other than that objection,
> I can see no reason that PL/J wouldn't have an equal claim to inclusion
> in core.
I'm being objective here, and PL/J is not nearly as stable or
well-maintained... that means a lot to me or to anyone who looks at
using a Java PL. Do we intend to ship both and say that one is less
capable? Have you used either of them? Don't get me wrong, I like
PL/J in concept... but it's just not even close to production-ready
yet. I know of no one using PL/J in production and about 40 or so
people using PL/Java.
> Perhaps more, because it gives us an extra layer of insulation
> from JVM licensing questions.
Again, I don't believe so. I'd like to hear how Dave thinks so, though.
--
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1300
EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301
33 Wood Ave S, 2nd Floor | jharris@enterprisedb.com
Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
