| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>, 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: | 2010-06-03 14:38:59 |
| Message-ID: | 201006031438.o53EcxV05947@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > >> 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.
> >
> > Yes, but my point was that if that occurs above the C++ code, it will
> > never be affected by it. We have to longjmp() *over* C++ code before
> > we have a problem. However, Bruce has answered the question of whether
> > or not that happens - it does, so I guess it doesn't matter.
>
> Yes. I have updated the C++ doc patch to call it a "distant"
> longjump().
Applied.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ None of us is going to be here forever. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Graf | 2010-06-03 14:46:40 | Re: How to debug efficiently |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-06-03 14:34:48 | Re: Auto-partitioning in COPY |