From: | "Jeroen T(dot) Vermeulen" <jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera Munoz <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: try/catch macros for Postgres backend |
Date: | 2004-07-29 14:10:49 |
Message-ID: | 20040729141049.GB84485@xs4all.nl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 09:58:54AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Right. The last bit (FINALLY executes whether or not a CATCH block
> re-throws) seemed too messy to handle in my little macros, so I'm
> planning on leaving it out. But I'm open to the idea if anyone has
> a clever implementation thought.
There's also the alternative of going to C++, of course, which would
give you full native exception handling. Most of this "finally" stuff
will go away when you have destructors, IMHO, and resource cleanups are
a whole lot easier. The main drawback is that stricter rules apply to
gotos and longjumps--but most of those will be "a poor man's exception
handling" anyway.
Jeroen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-07-29 14:12:22 | Re: more signals (was: Function to kill backend) |
Previous Message | Korea PostgreSQL Users' Group | 2004-07-29 14:06:17 | Re: win32 crash in initdb - it has still problems. |