Re: Why isn't Java support part of Postgresql core?

cowwoc <cowwoc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> · Mon, 15 Sep 2014 13:49:23 -0400



    Hi Pavel,

      
      On 15/09/2014 1:40 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:

    
      The main drivers are:

        
                  Not having to learn yet another language. I find
                    the expressiveness and readability of the other
                    scripting languages very clunky compared to Java.
                
              
            PLpgSQL is different, it is based on Ada language

            
    I'm sure it's a very lovely language, but it is yet another language
    most people are not familiar with and will have to learn.

    
                  Ease of porting triggers across databases. The
                    only thing that really changes across databases is
                    how triggers interact with input/output parameters.
                    The main body remains the same (thanks to JDBC).
                    This is quasi portability in the sense that the
                    underlying SQL is itself quasi portable, but I find
                    it a much more compelling approach than having to
                    rewrite the triggers for each database type.
                
              
            any time plpgsql will be faster then Java probably due
              a type compatibility with Postgres and execution as
              inprocess

              
            There is a few task, that can be done in database, that
              will be faster in PL/Java than PL/pgSQL

            
    I think developers choosing this route (myself included) are willing
    to pay the price in exchange for improved
    readability/maintainability (the assumption being that the resulting
    performance will be "good enough"). There seem to be plenty of
    people heading in this direction otherwise other languages (like
    pl/v8) wouldn't enjoy the popularity they do.

    
    Gili