| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Dave Cramer" <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Satoshi Nagayasu" <nagayasus(at)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp>, "Thomas Hallgren" <thomas(at)tada(dot)se> |
| Subject: | Re: Three weeks left until feature freeze |
| Date: | 2006-07-13 02:44:19 |
| Message-ID: | 1676.1152758659@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Jonah H. Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 7/12/06, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
>> Are they mutually exclusive? I can imagine, at least for development
>> purposes, that someone might want to install both.
> I believe both can be installed and running at the same time. 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? 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.) That's a
really fundamental difference that makes them suited for very different
applications; not to mention the resulting different licensing scenarios.
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. Perhaps more, because it gives us an extra layer of insulation
from JVM licensing questions.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-07-13 03:00:14 | Re: Online index builds |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-07-13 02:34:58 | Re: Implied Functional Index use |