Re: Shared memory

On 28-Mar-06, at 12:11 PM, Thomas Hallgren wrote:

> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Thomas Hallgren <thomas@tada.se> 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 majordomo@postgresql.org so that  
> your
>       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>