Re: PostgreSQL in the press again

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004, Thomas Hallgren wrote:

> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Yes but I believe even you would agree that their are programming
>> languages that are better for certain tasks than others. The use of
>> java as a replication engine for PostgreSQL seems, well... incorrect.
>
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> We definitely concur with that, which is why we are re-writing it ...
>> going to Java, as Andrew has mentioned, was *not* a design decision that
>> we made, but was made for us :(
>>
> Now I get really curious. Why would Java be a bad choice for a replication
> engine? I would consider it an excellent choice, provided of course that the
> people tasked with the implementation had the right skills. C-JDBC for
> instance, is written in Java.

Everyone obviously has their opinion, but in mine, Java just has toooooo
large of a memory foot print ... I don't know enough about Java to know if
this is something that is restricted to how eRServer/Java was coded or
not, but by default, the damn thing takes something like 300Mb of RAM for
just the engine :(

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664