| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Maksim Likharev <mlikharev(at)aurigin(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Share state ( allocated memory ) across two C functions... |
| Date: | 2003-06-30 23:22:52 |
| Message-ID: | 3F00C64C.9020909@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Maksim Likharev wrote:
> Of cause I can return a handle from first function, pointer and accept
> that pointer in second function, but in this case I have to check
> that pointer on validity and so on...
>
> Is there any good practice ( some way to do so ) for that?
>
Best way I've come up with to do this is by using a hash table based on
a name lookup. See the way it's done in dblink now (as of a week or so
ago) for named persistent connections.
HTH,
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2003-07-01 01:11:52 | Re: Pg_Dumpall error? |
| Previous Message | Maksim Likharev | 2003-06-30 22:57:26 | Share state ( allocated memory ) across two C functions... |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2003-06-30 23:32:46 | Re: [HACKERS] Missing array support |
| Previous Message | Maksim Likharev | 2003-06-30 22:57:26 | Share state ( allocated memory ) across two C functions... |