| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2010-06-02 18:29:50 |
| Message-ID: | 201006021829.o52IToF25392@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
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().
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ None of us is going to be here forever. +
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| /pgpatches/cpp | text/x-diff | 4.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2010-06-02 18:40:46 | Re: postgres authentication against Windows Domain |
| Previous Message | Manohar Bhattarai | 2010-06-02 18:23:57 | Exception while accessing database |