Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Hallgren <thomas@tada.se> writes:
>
>> I'd like to enable UDT's written in Java
>>
>
> Does Java really give you enough control over the bit-level
> representation of an object for this goal to be considered sane?
>
>
Most definitely yes!
> In particular, it seems unsafe to use a Java class as a PG UDT,
> because the method pointers wouldn't remain the same across
> backend runs.
>
>
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I assume that all calls would
come in through the java_call_handler. The java_call_handler will make
sure that the correct class and method is called. How is that different
from any other declared function? Or are you thinking of the lifecycle
of the binary data versus the lifecycle of the methods that manipulate
it? They might be different and that might cause problems. But that's
true for a UDT defined in C as well.
Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
