Re: server-side extension in c++

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Igor <igor(at)carcass(dot)ath(dot)cx>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: server-side extension in c++
Date: 2010-06-02 14:06:07
Message-ID: 201006021406.o52E67L22129@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Craig Ringer wrote:
> See the attached demo (pop all files in the same directory then run "make").
>
>
> > I would have
> > imagined that ultimately, the call to the Pg C function must return,
> > and therefore cannot affect stack unwinding within the C++ part of the
> > program.
>
> That's the whole point; a longjmp breaks the call chain, and the
> guarantee that eventually the stack will unwind as functions return.
>
> It's OK if you setjmp(a), do some work, setjmp(b), longjmp(a), do some
> work, longjmp(b), return.
>
> My understanding, which is likely imperfect, is that Pg's error handling
> does NOT guarantee that, ie it's quite possible that a function may call
> longjmp() without preparing any jmp_env to "jump back to" and therefore
> will never return.

You are correct that a longjump() jumps back to the query entry loop,
hopping over any user-defined C or C++ functions in the call stack, and
you are right that if we were just using longjump() without unwinding
C++ calls, we would be OK using non-POD structures.

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

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Wilcox 2010-06-02 14:08:18 Re: Out of Memory and Configuration Problems (Big Computer)
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2010-06-02 14:05:52 Re: postgres authentication against Windows Domain