Re: server-side extension in c++

Tom Lane wrote:
> Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > On 01/06/10 11:05, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I'd be interested to see a section like this written by someone who'd
> >> actually done a nontrivial C++ extension and lived to tell the tale.
>
> > I can't speak up there - my own C++/Pg backend stuff has been fairly
> > trivial, and has been where I can maintain a fairly clean separation of
> > the C++-exposed and the Pg-backend-exposed parts. I was able to keep
> > things separate enough that my C++ compilation units didn't include the
> > Pg backend headers; they just exposed a pure C public interface. The Pg
> > backend-using compilation units were written in C, and talked to the C++
> > part over its exposed pure C interfaces.
>
> Yeah, if you can design your code so that C++ never has to call back
> into the core backend, that eliminates a large chunk of the pain.
> Should we be documenting design ideas like this one?

I have incorporated the new ideas into the C++ documentation section,
and removed the comment block in the attached patch.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ None of us is going to be here forever. +