From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | justinb(at)mr-boo(dot)com, justinb(at)tricord(dot)com, PostgreSQL-interfaces <pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Re: libpq++ |
Date: | 2001-05-03 19:15:51 |
Message-ID: | 200105031915.f43JFpf12056@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-interfaces |
> Justin Banks <justinb(at)mr-boo(dot)com> writes:
> > As one would have expected, I've found a problem. The c++ std. says that
> > Automatic objects are not destroyed as a result of calling exit(), and so, a
> > automatic PgDatabase in main() (or most anywhere, actually), would not have
> > it's destructor called during an exit(), thereby leaving junk shm. segments
> > around.
>
> Unless your kernel is broken, application exit will cause the backend
> connection to be closed, whereupon the backend will exit gracefully.
> I see nothing to worry about here.
>
> I'm not sure where you got this notion that clients get to touch any
> of Postgres' shared memory ;-) but they don't.
I think he is creating his own shared memory area:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I'd like to have happen is for a total of one connection to the
database to be made, and have all these objects share that connection
transparently. I made this happen by using a shared memory segment to
store the connection pointer. Here's the diff. It doesn't seem to break
anything, but then again, my coverage is rather limited at this point.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-05-03 19:25:36 | Re: Re: libpq++ |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-05-03 19:13:00 | Re: Re: libpq++ |